Christopher Hitchens -- Religion
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2024
- Christopher Hitchens gives a talk in Canada on Free Speech in November 2006. This is the end of the twenty minute speech originally from One Good Move: onegoodmove.org...
Hitchens is right that religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred, and contempt.
We need more Christophers in this world
One of his best speeches.
when he died it was like dumbledore dying, when we still have so many voldemorts of religion left to defend ourselves from.
wow.. hitch really does know how to express himself. Im still learning more about what this guy believes in concerning more general and different topics. You can usually extract useful information and enlightening perspectives from his speeches.
Anyone know other speakers like hitchens, sam harris or dawkins?
The verse of John's 'Gospel' that Professor Hitchens makes an allusion to around 3:01-3:20, can someone help me to it? Been Google-ing it for weeks now and can't find it, maybe I'm just brain dead. Thanks in advance.
Love that he says stay cool at the end, made me laugh out loud, Hitchens is the man.
im so glad that bright people like him fight for freedom and reason. im also afraid that it is bitterly needed.
"nowadays we know so much more, than anyone before us knew." These people went before us and I dare say they were quite a bit more knowledgeable than many today. Hitchens represents a movement that was specifically known for mind control and thought policing - the Bolsheviks. His words are quite reminiscent of those heard in Russia 80 years ago.
That's not what he said. The whole point was that people were/are trying to get laws passed banning the criticism of religion. The problem is that the religious texts themselves criticise and condemn all other religions, which means the speech laws are going to backfire on the religious and get their books banned.
I'm not sure if there is one book on just Scientific Atheism, but the 'Storming the Heavens: The Soviet League of the Militant Godless' by Daniel Peris is a great one about these subjects. There are several others also.
I agree, arguing semantics is pointless. I am talking about the conclusions of the court not the verdict.
how does being hurtful or rude or cursing even help get a point across? The method with which a point is put across to others matters a lot. For me, when someone starts off swearing and/or trying to debase someone/thing I shut them right out. There's no point in trying to have a rational debate because I know there isn't going to be anything rational about it.
Saying that religions need to be ridiculed maybe a stretch. Religion becomes clear when looking at history and science. Just today religion does separate people. While bringing people together, it also becomes a reason to combat other sects of belief. That isn't to say that all religious people engage in such activities. It is just the structure of church and religion.
This guy is wonderful... I've just started seeing his name around, heard him mentioned on NPR yesterday.
Thanks for posting it
It is a shame that most of Hitchens' videos have far less than a million views. I feel as though the more people that see this man speak, the more people will lose their faith in the bogus religions of our species. Please spread his videos as often as you can.
Couldnt phrase it more succinctly myself!!
Now if it is both religious groups and non-religious groups committing all of these atrocities,then I can only deduce that it is wayward humanity that is to blame and not religion nor the absence of it.
Prayer may not work, but it does say something about the one offering it. It gives believers a free pass to lie, as well to convey extreme arrogance without anyone calling them on it. Not only do they claim to pray for all these people and never end up doing it, but just saying it implies that they have some greater power and significance in the universe than you do. It tells you that you have just met someone who hasn't learned how to think yet.
It was certainly not just in the Soviet Union. Their model was followed in China, South Asia, and Eastern Europe. And the violence was extremely organized. An estimated 130 million died.
Here again is my questions and before you go off on a tangent. Know that these are framed in a yes or no format. You can add a little more afterward explaining why you think that way but don't dodge the question.
Would you pass judgment on your son or daughter whom you loved unconditionally and send your wrath to torment them eternally if they disowned you or didn't believe in you?
Thank you "nomeemania".You are the perfect example of why close minded religious individuals are extremely violent and dangerous.I hope that in this era, these selfish and hateful people will fade away when others observe that they really accomplish nothing but death and destruction. It is really sad to see a human being with that level of hatred towards other humans for nothing more then their point of view, which is against hatred in the world. How can someone really be against that ?
aroogal, If you are referring to "Scientific Atheism", that's not a term I just dreamed up. It was the actual term used for state atheism during the communist era.
How can you help but admire a man who has made a career out of simply having an opinion that is more worth-listening-to than the next guy's? What a legend.
"We are afriad of the dark, and we are afraid to die" - that bit, for some reason, makes my hair stand on end.
The more I see of Hitch, while he is more abrasive than Dawkins, Dennett et al, the more I think he is right.
We need to stand up for free speech, and against religious intolerance.
Hitchens never once contradicted himself though.
When are you going to realize that it is meaningless to be against "hate".
That is like being against love, pain, or pleasure.
And yes he did need to spend the rest of the time supporting his main point, and restating it in different ways, because apparently people still manage too miss it because they are just too thick and full of misleading preconceptions.
He even re-stated his point earlier with the example of the witch prosecuter.
The Olympic Games officially ended in 393 AD, when the emperor Theodosius I declared that all pagan cults and practices be eliminated. In 426 AD, his successor Theodosius II ordered the destruction of Olympia, Delphi and all the other Greek temples.
The Academy in Athens was founded approximately in 385 BC. Emperor Justinian closed the school in AD 529, a date that is often cited as the end of Antiquity.
Which people are you talking about? "Extremist and fanatical humans" or some of the bloggers?
where did I say he didn't have a right to speak his mind? what I said had nothing to do with free speech. I've noticed that some radical atheists have a lot of trouble with free speech too. In particular, religious speech, which they often try to interfere with and limit or restrict. Also, I never said he was violent , I said he was extremist, by calling for ridicule, hatred,and contempt for religion. Atheism itself has an extremely violent history. so to be accurate he needs to include it too.
it is annoying, but not more so for unbelievers than for believers. Regardless, people can disagree without being ignorant. When people are blatantly rude about others and their beliefs, on either side of it, it speaks volumes about their character.
On the contrary, the burden of defining "religion" to a specific entity is not Hitchens' burden, especially within this short video. Your comment was as ambiguous as it was hostile, likely because pointing out a flaw in the rationale of this speech would be a failing effort. When a discussion turns to semantics and all we can look to for criticism is diction, the discussion itself is null. How does Hitchens deny religion as a "social phenomenon"? I don't see your point. Clarify.
I never said that religious fanaticism did'nt exist - which it does. That does not mean that all religious people are prone to fanatical actions. Call it "fanatical", "radical", whatever. Overt nationalism is fanaticism, (ie.nazism). Political fanaticism is another. Racial fanaticism,still another. Without religion, you will still have fanaticism. If the whole world were atheistic and "rational" - still fanaticism would exist because humans exist.
Why are you making an argument against supposition which should be dismissed as such?
This isn't about atheism or humanism, it's about religion and the threat it presents to the world at large.
If the last thousand years were a trial of religion what would be the verdict?
What are religions fruits if not the precarious and life threatening world we find ourselves in today?
Jarrod: I would definitely agree with that. But I wonder how we might go about "doing something about it," as you say. HItchens just says get rid of religion in an offhand - as if that were possible or even desirable, given the positive effects religion has also had. I don't pretend to have any answers, though.
What a loss to free thinkers...a sigh of relief from the mideast haters
You are so missed, and have been never more needed x
I know this isn't my hissy-fit, but I'd like to get the cite to one single peer reviewed study on the "power" of intention. Because my understanding is that the belief in magic is not scientific. One single peer-reviewed article? Please?
So do you believe that all religions are equally valuable and right? What are you saying with this?
But where would this line of logic lead? If I must disprove the existence of entities for which I see no evidence I could spend my days trying to establish the non- existence of invisible pink walruses in my bedroom. If I was bold enough enough to declare (after years of serious pink walrus hunting) that I am convinced of their non-existence would you tell me that because I can't actually provide categorical proof of their non-existence that I should declare myself agnostic on the subject?
Came here straight from the comments section on the articles about the bombings. I was seeing red.
You still don't get it. I have to provide nothing. My position is simply that no one has given me convincing evidence for the existence of God. What do I have to prove? Nothing at all. It is up to the person making the assertion to provide proof - not me. If we did it your way an accused man would have to provide proof of innocence. If he couldn't prove he didn't commit a crime he would be considered guilty. The same general principle holds in this case. As an atheist I have to prove nothing.
I agree with you about the incitement to hatred. Hitchens crossed the line there.
Of course not all religionists are of the same mind, but at this point, enough of them are on issues like gay marriage, or the approval of millenarians like Sarah Palin, to worry me.
On atheism as religion, it depends on how you define religion...
@ VindicatedVigilante
And please show me where I contradicted myself and said that they were all correct. not say they were correct.
But keep in mind there is a distinct difference between the words "valid" and "correct"
"for good people to do bad things, it takes religion" So if an atheist does a bad thing I can assume no religion is involved and if no religion is involved that means that it was not a good person that did the bad, therefore...
We are not even talking about these things. We are discussing whether there is a god or not and whether or not people can freely believe how they so choose. And really you are free to believe as you will. Makes no diff to me, but if you are unable to argue your case using logic or science or both, then you can hardly call yourself rational. When you resort to ad hominem attacks, you weaken your case.
Christianity came to dominance during the reign of Julian's successors, Jovian, Valentinian I, and Valens (the last Eastern Arian Christian Emperor). On February 27, 380, Theodosius I issued the edict De Fide Catolica establishing "Catholic Christianity" as the exclusive official state religion, outlawed other faiths, and closed pagan temples. Additional prohibitions were passed by Theodosius I in 391 further proscribing remaining pagan practices.
as if i wouldn't like the notion of eternal life.. but because i fancy that idea, it doesn't make it true.. you can argue yourself with tricky philosophical innuendos and it's completely ok if this is convincing to you, if it helps you sleep at night, but what do you want from others? do we all have to be like that?
The part that you are missing is that it has to be wonderful. It has to seem perfect for life, the conditions have to be spot on. Quite simply because you and I are observing it. If it the universe were any other way we would not be here to comment on its unsightliness. So it is not that this world is too wonderful to have happened by accident, it is that it a necessary requirement for our existence. This is not science, it is philosophy.
tolerance for the sake of tolerance? respect? i don't know.. in the end, every time someone tries to speak out about religious beliefs, it's such a taboo subject to criticize, isn't it? if hitchens is annoying to believers, imagine how annoying it is for unbelievers to listen to priests and mullahs who use god to condemn people who happen to doubt the trueness of it all.. isn't a religion in general a very discriminating ideology?
Not one of 'your' founding fathers was EVER Christian. They frequently spoke against it.
We are gettting better though. With the invention of the internet you can't help but to learn. UA-cam alone has to educate a massive amount of people on a daily basis to question their beliefs. In fact, I would argue that UA-cam is the biggest resource in the world right now to convert from believer to non-believer. Hitch and friends being available so easily and us being here to make believers ask questions helps. I am sure of it. It certainly lets me learn new things everyday just for fun!
Makes no difference what the phrase was. He is not inciting hatred, he is expressing his thoughts on baseless belief. As far as ridicule, if you have ridiculous, baseless beliefs, you might be leaving yourself open to ridicule for them.
There is no such thing as an atheistic idea. Atheist ideas are ANY that don't include god. You have atheistic ideas about cars for example. Atheism is a non thing. It is lack of belief. You say that NOT believing in god makes no sense to you?
Peace
great speech, great guy!
Individuals and groups throughout history have been persecuted by certain Christians and Christian groups based upon sex, sexual orientation, race, and religion. During Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, important Christian theologians advocated religious persecution to varying degrees.
After Constantine I converted to Christianity, it became the dominant religion in the Roman Empire. Already under the reign of Constantine I, Christian heretics had been persecuted.
If I had a relationship with anything I stored next to my bed, I would be sent off for psychological evaluation. I still can't believe this is tolerated in society, it really is insane.
I'm not trying to provoke a fight either, but facts are facts. Hitler said he was a Roman Catholic, he wrote over and over in Mien Kampf about Christianity and his belief in god. So he was a lot of things, but Atheist isn't one of them.
Thank you Christopher Hitchens. You are entirely correct!!
Actually, it was probably Dawkins who tipped the scales for me. He makes the case for first cause as a natural process devoid of any intelligence and that life resulting from chemical reaction at some point in the earth's distant history. But Sagin calculates that intelligent life has or does exist on millions of other planets. For Dawkin's process to just happen on all of those planets-well... the probabilities against are just overwhelming. Lewis was able to reason, too.
This is just special pleading. You wouldn't apply it to anything else. Very few atheists actually state "God does not exist." Rather they would say, like me, I have seen no evidence to convince me of God's existence and furthermore the existence of God is so improbable and contradictory (from several logical viewpoints) that I am prepared to dismiss the proposition. This is a stronger position than that of the agnostic who simply says we cannot know. If you wish to say that despite everything
It doesn't matter what I believe or what you believe. The simple fact remains is that it is objectively impossible to state absolutely "there is no life after death". Not empirically possible. You are just spouting everyday, atheistic, dawkinsbot, rhetoric.
I'm still trying to figure out what FOX news has to do with anything here. But I am an historian by profession and it helps to base your argument on facts gained from actual empirical data. I have to question who the tool is here when I see someone exhorting hatred ridicule and contempt and people unquestionably agreeing with him.
Educate those around you as to why they could be wrong, telling them that they will live in terminal ignorance and die angry,hardly helps to spread the message of enlightenment.
hub...what questions am I dodging, I've been answering questions for a week. The current state of world affairs (assuming you mean terrorism) is largely due to religious extremism. What percentage or religious people are extremists? And is it religion or culture, or possibly a charismatic leader? Yes religion can be a motivator, just as money or power or politics can be a motivator. If religion disappeared tomorrow, very little would change.
In your text you didn't refer to groups related to the WBC; you lept from WBC directly to "society" to "religion," which is very confusing. Irrespective of this, my last point holds: you unfairly generalize when you state that "religion claims that without a holy book, you are lost in morality." *Which* religion?? Hence my point that "religion" is not reducible to monotheist, book-fixated bigots - even if they do tend to have some of the loudest mouths in North America.
Christopher Hitchens is the only person who could say "This is really serious" and not be laughed at.
I always wondered how someone can believe in god with no evidence at all but then ask an someone of another religion (like an Hindu) how can you believe in that? does any see the irony but me?
That would be a pretty good trick since he was born in 1935 and wasn't drafted until '58. Oh, yeah, he was stationed in Germany.
Do you know what "false analogy" means?
How about "spell check"?
it gives me hope for my children that there are people out there that are not being brain-washed by zealots and hate mongers. religion is dead. science lives.
oh yes...making generalizations and one line insults are the work of a genius
you's such an einstein
ban..exactly. one will never believe the other. heres a sitiuation for. how do you think either side would react if there was proof of how we got here and both sides were absolutely wrong? doesnt matter how, just let me hear how you think either side would react.
Government is force, regardless of regime or system.
the key word here is "objectively". If say that your method of epistemological inquiry is correct while there are others out there that can debunk yours-then yours is seriously lacking and you must rethink your hypothesis. Empiricism is great and necessary for science, but lacking for other disciplines.
The cause of the dark ages was the fall of the Roman empire. Christianity and the Catholic Church were the ones that kept the dark ages going by supressing art, new philosophies and science.
Public policy is and should be defined by democracy and in the US and Canada we do have freedom of religion. That doesn't mean that there aren't those who will try to exploit the system but that is what civil law is about. Man's law will always prevail if it is applied democratically. It can protect everyone. And I have witnessed atheists referring to science as their "religion". That's why it is used here in quotes. So take that for what it's worth. For some its the only source of knowledge
"Scientific Atheism" was the official name of state atheism. this model was used in Russia, China, SouthAsia, and the Eastern Bloc.Their philosophic roots were the same as atheist groups of today. Hitchens is avowed Trotskyite and therefore no different from those mentioned here. He would have fit well into 1917 Russia.
That is an excellent point. Thank you.....it's just simple logic isn't it....?,,,,emotions somehow distort things. Keep up the Rational Crusade!
He has put his arguements forward, but there are many other counter arguements.
North n South Korea, Iraq n Kuwait. Vietnam, Rwanda, Sudan, South Africa, Japan n China, Russia n US, Roman conquest.... all he points out is actual for this time. I see that its only a trend, in 100 years, Mankind will simply find a new enemy, call it names, n attack it. Its not religion , but just the nature of Mankind when unguided.
"Please a reference and I will not justify the un-justifiable"
Your words and here you are doing just that. Can you not answer my questions? Are the answers too inconvenient? Is it because you know very well that punishing your children in this manner is is immoral? Can you comprehend that in this day and age you are capable of surpassing your gods capacity to love?
Premise: Religions are man made constructs to unite & control the masses.
Whether it be for good or bad is another topic.
@Believerification
Yeah you are right. Stoning back in the days was the ultimate embodiment of love... Boy were we all wrong
You showed us all..
@RationalConclusion prayer leaves behind a legacy of over 4.6 billion people, and I am referring to Jesus Christ if you have not figured it out.
Regarding Hitchens on abortion. As I understand it he is pro-choice but sets the limit at the state at which the fetus becomes viable (15 weeks I think) which is in accordance with almost any pro-choicer, as I understand it, and also might I add, the legal limit for abortion in most countries that allow abortion. And that 15 week limit is based on science, not religion - which is presumeably the reason that Hitchens, along with many others, accept it as valid.
If that's the case then you are the 1st atheist who has no epistemology, by which s(he) he arrived at that particular viewpoint. You would have had to have arrived at that point by using some method of inquiry or way of knowing, which is the very definition of epistemology.
BTW Lennon was not killed out of love, but out of insanity. That is not love.
@seventh77 Well, you have taken a very narrow definition of religion to suit your argument. Firstly, there does not need to be a supernatural or god specifically involved to make something a religion. Hitchens, like I have said before, believes that Western Nations have a right to do what they want, even if no one else likes it, based on the fact that they are simply right - no evidence needed. Sounds a lot like belief in god, yes?
This man is a great individual, a genius, and a brave brave man !
Have you read the whole story?
The vatican gave hitler the names and addresses of all the known jews in rome. They also celebrated his birthday until he was overthrown as a national religious holiday. You know very little about the real story of hitler apparently.
No you don't get it at all. And I do see a hypocritical stance when you will be willing to make a critical analysis of islam but for whatever reason are unable to see the deep rooted hate in your particular text or doctrines in your own faith. And please don't assume that I don't or have not read the qur'an. or the bible. I am currently going through the book of mormon and you will never guess how much love is contained in the pages within. All that aside they have nothing to do with your stance
You have your right to speak and express and religious people have theirs. What more can I say? that's a democracy. I do find it ironic that the very people he claims are trying to silence him, he is trying to silence. I absolutely do not agree with you. There are many things I don't like to see but this world is just not a perfect place. N.Korea! There's a nice structured environment without too much advertising and no sign of religion (glorious leader- worship excepted of course).
I apologize for the little rant, had a run-in on the street with some Jehovah's witnesses for the THIRD STRAIGHT DAY in a row and I'm at the end of wits with having other peoples' beliefs being shoved in my face.
I am very comfortable with "naturalist" and also with "atheist". I am referencing radical fanatical atheists and radical fanatical religionists.
@ VinVig
Watched it a while ago. Apparently you are not the first to find the arguments in this video somewhat compelling, although you will find that some of the claims in that so called documentary are scoffed at by the scientific community. Particularly by anybody who has a degree in chemistry. Cmo'n, do you really believe everything that winds up on tv without reading scientific journals?! It is sad to see such a drift between academic understanding and the people who it benefits every day.
There are many reasons why not to stuff, guzzle, smoke, dope, fuck oneself to death or oblivion. It hurts, makes one distracted from perceiving the beauty of life, world and also, believe it or not, the love which God can give one into ones mind (heart) and it keeps one of being able to understand divine secrets, the status of becoming children of God, plans for the future of the world and the universe, which are being revealed to one when one starts reading the words of God.....
Praise Hitch!!!
I doubt that it is a lack of education on the part of the people who criticize christianity and I think you are on to something when you said it is easy enough for a child to understand what it takes. Is it that childlike wonder or possibly the ability to perceive everything with such vivid imagination. I remember I used to believe that airplanes left a trail of cotton candy as they traveled in the upper atmosphere.
My god, how does he do it?
" repeating everything your idols tell you to believe."
irony.
.Isaiah 66:24 look Upon the corpses of the men Who have transgressed against Me. For their worm does not die, And their fire is not quenched. They shall be an abhorrence" Mark 9:43b better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched 44 where Their worm does not die And the fire is not quenched.Jude 1:7as Sodom and Gomorrah, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.