Christopher Hitchens was a very brilliant man. I wish he was still with us because I just love to hear him talk. I agree with every word he said. R. I. P. Mr Hitchens.
That's true. I am not responsible for what the first two humans supposedly did thousands of years before my birth, nor did I ever ask Jesus to die for me. Telling me he made a sacrifice for me is nothing more than trying to guilt trip me into worshiping him.
My favorite point that Hitchens made during that interview was to give an example of the relationship between him and his kids, basically saying, 'I had some part in making them but at some point you need to let them go, anything less would make me a tyrant'. Paraphrased of course, but this worshipful mindset really struck me as being an example of where and when these religions from. An era and a place where kings were worshipped and a man was king of his home. I can't think of a single thing more pathetic than that. Not one.
I have been dealing with a person who is just like the person confronting Hitchens for over 3 years, they refuse to believe that someone could read their book, understand what is written, and not agree with it. The most common accusation is that "you didn't read the book", or "you didn't read it properly", and by properly they mean as a tabula rasa, with nothing in your brain to start with, everything that you have ever learned must be discarded and forgotten.
No wonder the book wasn't worth reading... if the author expects you to read it with "cleared mind" then he obviously wrote it that way... what a horrible waste of paper if the ideas can only stand on their own and not in any other context than the one he intends you to follow...
"The most common accusation is that "you didn't read the book", or "you didn't read it properly"" I just realized, how I've seen/heard/been a part of similar argument, with many non-religious topics. (granted, I might have let similar thing slip out of my mouth, time or two in the past) Basically, when ever someone is not agreeing with their taste of X, they are baffled by this idea, and only solution in their mind is that, that someone just hasn't experience that X properly. "you don't like this food? Well, you've just been eating the low quality school lunch versions, not properly done ones"
This is such a beautiful example Tracie gave talking about the interview with Hitchens and a non-comprehension christian - I've been following the atheist experience and other atheist to christian debates on youtube, and I am stilled baffled by this voluntary idiocy so many christians seem to adopt.
It's the black knight syndrome. Apologetics is one thing. Creationism is another completely. The evidence is not hard to understand. To me, the argument against God seems strong but the evidence for evolution is simply undeniable. Yet their brains simply won't allow it. One can destroy a creationist and prove evolution with overwhelming evidence and the creationist would still say things like "There's absolutely no evidence.". It's the black knight. "It's only a flesh wound. I've had worse."
In my opinion, the arguments against the existence of God are very weak arguments, and most of them are emotional. One of the issues with evolution is taking the fundamental definition of the word, "evolution", which basically means, "change over time"; and extrapolating on that to force the concept that life forms originated from one common denominator, branching out into all the extreme and complex diversity that we observe today. We know much more than Darwin did in his day, and more than 150 years later we can observe the tiny molecular motors in living cells. Darwin did not have the tools in which to perceive such amazing complexity. Had he known what we do today about the many molecular machines, he might have changed his thinking. Regarding evolution, no one argues against the idea that in time things change, they vary, they adapt. But what has not been proven, since there is absolutely no evidence for this, is the fallacy that any organism, animal, plant, etc., can horizontally morph to a totally different family of classification (canine to feline, for example). There is no empirical evidence for that ideology. The design argument makes much, much more rational sense than the idea that random chance occasions magically caused all of what we observe today. The truth is that there is so much information in the cell that calls for a designer, since the building code information in the cell cannot derive from random processes. Information/language always sources back to an intelligent mind - always!
@@WienArtist There aren't many arguments against the existence of god. There are a few. But that's how it would be. Can you give me reasons why you don't believe in Bigfoot without talking about the lack of evidence? They only look like Evinrude outboard motors when looking at diagrams. I agree that canines can't change into felines. But they do have a common ancestor.
@@PaulTheSkeptic Bigfoot? Come on now! That's a false analogy. Besides, you make the assumption that I do not believe in some character called Bigfoot. I never made that assertion. I don't understand what you are attempting to convey with the comparison to outboard motors, when you used the word, "they". Who are they? Common ancestor? That is evolutionist tripe! Common Designer, yes! However, the evidence is that our current dogs were once wolves, but still in the canine kingdom.
@@WienArtist It wasn't an analogy. It was a direct question. Of course I assumed you don't believe in Bigfoot. Do you? If so I'll just come up with another example of something people believe in but you don't. The point has nothing to do with comparing God to Bigfoot in any sense. It doesn't matter what what it is. It just has to be something you don't believe in. How about the god Apollo? Do you have evidence that Apollo does not exist? No, you just don't have evidence that he does. That's the point. Creationists bring up the flagellar motor as an example of obvious design. In reality it's just a bunch of squishy stuff that allows a cell to move. "They" in this case are the flagellar motors. "They" only look like Evinrude outboard motors in molecular diagrams. So, you think the similarities we find in interrelated species throughout all life is because of a common designer? Is that what you're saying? It's a common misunderstanding that evolution means that a species will change into something else entirely. That never happens. Humans are still eukaryotes. Everything is what it was. We are still correctly and currently classified as apes and as monkeys, primates, mammals, tetrapods, vertebrates, chordates, deuterostomes, animals and eukaryotes. Animals evolve from basal to specialized. Once an organism becomes highly specialized to exploit a niche, they become dependant on that niche. For example, vultures are highly specialized to fly for hours searching for carrion. They can eat things so toxic it would kill you or me. If that food source became unavailable, they'd go extinct and allow a more basal animal to fill that niche if it became available again. So long periods of stasis in between extinction events is common. Imagine you drop a glass of milk. There's an initial explosion but as the milk trickles across the floor and fills in the cracks, everything slows down and it stays there until the mop of extinction comes along to clean it.
@@PaulTheSkeptic Whether I believe in the existence of a being called, Bigfoot is irrelevant to comparing my relevance to my belief in God. There are many things that scientists believe in yet are not able to see. Seeing is not the all-encompassing touchstone that something exists. However, in many cases of things we cannot see, we believe in them because of the evidence. This is directly associated with a belief in God, not gods mind you. There are many false gods mentioned in the Holy Bible. But because people invent false gods does nothing to diminish or eliminate the one true God. All of the false gods (we call them idols) are inventions of mankind to attempt to understand events that prior to scientific discoveries, no one knew. Take Thor for example. It was thought that he was the god of thunder. But later the true reason for lightning and thunder was discovered, and Thor's existence faded into oblivion. However, the existence of the Creator of the universe and all that is, has nothing to do with trying to invent an explanation. Truthfully, the idea of God is implanted deep within all of us at our birth. It is referred to as the Sensus divinitatis ("sense of divinity"), also referred to as sensus deitatis ("sense of deity") or semen religionis ("seed of religion"), is a term first used by French Protestant reformer John Calvin to describe an innate human sense of God. Instead of knowledge of the environment (as with, for example, smell or sight), the sensus divinitatis gives humans a knowledge of God. In Calvin's view, there is no reasonable non-belief. Neo-Calvinists who adhere to the school of Christian apologetics sometimes appeal to a sensus divinitatis to argue that there are no genuine atheists: “That there exists in the human mind and indeed by natural instinct, some sense of Deity [sensus divinitatis], we hold to be beyond dispute, since God himself, to prevent any man from pretending ignorance, has endued all men with some idea of his Godhead…. …this is not a doctrine which is first learned at school, but one as to which every man is, from the womb, his own master; one which nature herself allows no individual to forget." Analytic philosopher Alvin Plantinga of the University of Notre Dame posits a modified form of the sensus divinitatis whereby all have the sense, only it does not work properly in some humans, due to sin's noetic effects. In other words, due to the effect of our sinful nature which interferes with the proper utility of our cognitive awareness. Are you attempting to argue that because God cannot be seen (he cannot because he is spirit), that he therefore does not exist. That is a very puny and empty argument, as I have already pointed out that seeing is not proof that something exists or not. It might be true that even if God would make himself visible that some people would assume that they are experiencing a hallucination. And in many cases with atheists, they have an a priori rejection against any kind of evidence for God, simply because they do not want God to exist. As the former atheist C.S. Lewis pointed out, one can readily determine the reasons why an atheist rejects any evidence of God merely by following that person home. Truthfully, there are some atheists who wish to push God out of their minds (as if that would eliminate his existence) because they know that their lifestyle would require severe changes, and they do not desire to make such changes because they enjoy what they are doing, even though subconsciously they know full well that such actions are wrong. So what they do is attempt to remove God from his rightful place, and set themselves up as their own little god. I have listened to enough of the late Christopher Hitchens's arguments to know that was the case for him. How about the god Apollo? Do you have evidence that Apollo does not exist? No, you just don't have evidence that he does. That's the point. That is not the point! Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And there are plenty of great evidences for the existence of God. Here's a question for you: What do you think is one of the best arguments for the existence of God, and why do you not accept that? Creationists bring up the flagellar motor as an example of obvious design. In reality it's just a bunch of squishy stuff that allows a cell to move. "They" in this case are the flagellar motors. "They" only look like Evinrude outboard motors in molecular diagrams. I suggest that you take some time to watch this intriguing video about molecular machines. The bacteria flagellum is only one example of the various other molecular machines. ua-cam.com/video/7ToSEAj2V0s/v-deo.html So, you think the similarities we find in interrelated species throughout all life is because of a common designer? Is that what you're saying? More to the point of what I am trying to convey is the concept of intelligent design. This concept is not just a glib way of trying to sneak the idea of God into a person's perspective. Intelligent design is a scientific concept that is easily recognized in our daily life. Whenever we observe something that cannot be caused by any natural or materialistic process, we recognize that there was an intelligent mind behind it. Take the sculptures of the four Presidents atop Mount Rushmore. No one would view such remarkable works of art and say, „Wow, isn't amazing how the constant falling of rain, the wind, and sand hitting that mountain; created such amazing sculptures!“ That's ludicrous! Of course we know that such things are the product of intelligent minds. The same goes for books, or portraits, realistic paintings, or computer codes, or language of any kind - all of which are products of intelligent minds. Even as simple as walking along the beach, and seeing the word, "Hello" scrawled there is enough to convince you that it did not happen by natural forces - that some intelligent being inscribed that in the sand, even though you did not witness it. No one would consider that a complex computer code or even the computer itself was the product of random chance happenings. That is exactly the connection with the digital information we find in DNA/RNA. It is a building code, a blueprint if you will, that contains all the information required to build every body plan in any biological organism. You cannot get information from chaotic, random chance, happenstance, evolutionary process. Information, regardless of its simplicity or complexity, always traces back to an intelligent mind. Always!
Childhood indoctrination of religion is not discussed enough. It is very likely that the VAST number of callers were indoctrinated as children, but only attempt to use apologetics as an adult response. Hence, despite those apologetics getting debunked, they simply fall back on what they were taught before they possessed the critical faculties to address the matter with reason. In this sense, apologetics is merely post hoc arguments for already well-entrenched beliefs.
This is such an important point that Tracie is making. I know firsthand! I have been an "out-of-the-closet" atheist for some time now, and I STILL fight--on a very regular basis--the emotional pull of my childhood religious indoctrination, despite being a fairly well-studied atheism apologist.
I mean, your parents are the ones who 'made' you. I do technically own my life thanks to them, but that still doesn't mean they own me or they are entitled to unconditional obligations. It's as George Carlin said: "obedience and respect shouldn't be automatic. It should be earned by the parents, based on their performance".
Christopher Hitchens vs. Todd Friel interviews Radio - Hilarious. My favourite retort: "It's only with gentle Jesus, meek and mild, that the idea of eternal torture for minor transgressions is introduced... so I'm not sure you know quite what you're talking about."
I saw that video with hitchens and the theist. It was just fun to watch. I've never seen anyone who could match Christopher hitchens intellect. I wish you were still alive in today's world.
I think Matt does an admirable job of confronting intuitive behavior that leads to irrational beliefs, but Hitchens added a vast amount of historical and literary context to how those beliefs have retarded our move to enlightenment. If you note, Hitchens wish was to be surrounded by interesting and ironic people and those qualities are quite rare on any side of a world view.
Hitchens was a monumental intellect, totally overshadowing all of the apologists he ever came in contact with. There was not a single theist/deist I am aware of who was able to adequately refute any of Hitchens' salient arguments.
what I remember vaguely from that show when the host said to hitchens: god is responsible for everything in your life, he owns you, then would you not obligated to respect him? Hitchens said: He didnt give me everything, he didnt give me right to not be owned and to criticise him(but hitchens is still doing it) then I dont repsect him. Respect for Hitch.
too many people presume that understanding demands agreement and that disagreement demonstrates failure to understand. my own mother does this: you're either misinformed, brainwashed or just plain stupid if you don't accept her opinions. i attribute the misconception to the common apprehension that they cannot be right if you are not wrong. while that's often true, they always assume it's a zero-sum game. and the more closely-held and/or deeply-ingrained an opinion, the more personal criticism of it becomes ...
The Hitchens/Friel interview was a thing of beauty - the best instance I've ever heard of someone using the Ray Comfort apologetic and getting thrown completely off his script.
LOVE this show!!! Keep spreading Knowledge, Love and Peace !!!! My heart goes out to Christopher as well, I hope his cancer goes into remission!! I HOPE more than anything we can find a cure!!
Yes, saying that we should grovel before a god under threat of eternal torture just because he/she created you is basically the same as saying that parents should be allowed to murder their children because they gave them life.
I heard that interview years ago. Just re-listened. Hilarious. Hitch getting it and...being Hitch. Host continuously reminding him "it's what if"...completely NOT getting that Hitch WAS completely getting it. Run through the Ten Commandments How will you fare on Judgement Day part... And, like a brainless quiz on FB, Hitch's answers "consigned him to hell". (As, of course, any but a perfect score would. And non-perfection is baked in. Half-baked in?) Including "wishing someone dead" equivocal to murder. Thought crime. Hitch pointing out that, no, the 10C were OT...and it wasn't til the NT, with "Gentle Jesus Meek & Mild that the concept of eternal torture was introduced". And, final laugh (and truest thing host said) with the sign off. "THIS...is Wretched Radio." Yes it is. Perfectly, divinely even, wretched.
***** sorry, but note the "that I heard years ago". I don't even recall what podcast I heard it on, much less which episode. So no, not gonna look for days, probably still not finding it, to satisfy a stranger's one word request on UA-cam.
I'm an Englishman, aged 45, from a family where religion meant nothing, and I still remember my first day of school in 1972. We were marched into "assembly" to recite what seemed like one long, gibberish word (it turned out to be the Lord's Prayer), and then preached to by the head-master about what were - I presume - extracts from the Bible. I had never heard of that book, had no idea why I should regard it as an authority, and none of it was ever explained. Life-long atheism was assured.
Tracie brings up some really strong points, and points I have encountered in discussions with Christians, Mormons and Jehovahs witnesses. the indoctrination and underlying fear has them so immobilized that they are unable to really hear anything other than there own internal dialogue of unworthiness
People around the world can attest to the fact that cold records are being broken, the oceans are not rising and that tropical storms vary in severity from year-to-year as they always have.
@jed clampett, For what purpose? If you want to convince people that god does this or god wants that, you first have to convince people that god is more than an imaginary character created for the purpose of political control.
Two pieces of gold are linked in that they are both made of gold, possibly from the same gold mine, sub atomicly identical, same color, shape etc... So they are linked in the same way we are all linked. Thanks for another great example!
@sailornaruto39 I agree with your last sentence; the question is not whether Christopher Hitchens would submit to an almighty deity for fear of eternal damnation (if such an entity existed), but whether that deity would be justified in making anyone do so, for the simple reason that we are his creation.
Yes I understand, a hypothetical Hitchens and a hypothetical christian were debating and that this hypothetical Hitchens understood that the hypothetical god was hypothetical.
"...He could not grasp that somebody could understand the scenario that he's explaining and not agree with his own conclusions." I know exactly what this is like. I have had so many arguments where the other person acts like this. Most often with Christians and feminists. Yes, I understand that your faith gives you comfort; no, that does not prove it's real. Yes, I understand that sexism still exists; no, that does not prove that all women are victims of it and men never are.
Tracie Harris's analysis right at the beginning about how early indoctrination creates a locked door seemed right on the money to me. That's why the apologetics as she says are all over the place. Cradle catholics are a case in point. Take any one you like and pursue any line of questions in however friendly a way you will eventually come that locked door. It must be like living(as I once did)in the old west Berlin: every single road in the city led eventually to the Berlin Wall or a closed gate
If humans are created capable of thinking things through entirely, while also knowing they must reject all they have been able to understand, that doesn't sound like something to be grateful for. That sounds like a curse.
I just watched the video Tracie's talking about, and it amazes me that the host obviously didn't even SKIM Hitchens' book before having him on, or he would have handled the answers better, knowing what was coming. Instead he just thought "My side is obviously right, so I'll just stun this Hitchens guy with my brilliance." He then proceeds to show exactly how monumentally you can fail if you choose to have god on your side, instead of knowledge that he could have had by just reading a book.
@TruthSurge Fair enough, but in the original interview that I'm talking about (which you may have already heard) Friel kept repeating that very thing. So, in essence, I think she was just emphasizing how many times Friel was doing just that: redundantly repeating himself and patronizing Hitchens. Thus, as I said, he was following his little script designed by Ray Comfort. But, like I said, I take your point.
I think it may also prove helpful to some of the viewers here to try to evaluate many of the more strident claims of the anti-theist critique ("brights") from a ideological/ metaphysics perspective. Check out the recent article by Jackson Lears in the May 16, 2011 issue of the The Nation entitled "Same Old New Atheism" .The article offers a compelling analysis of Sam Harris' works. Consideration is given to general atheistic social perspectives
@BANGBANGBANGBBANG Actually, Tracy's recounting of the interview is fairly accurate. I just listened to the entire interview. It's obvious that the radio host could not understand how anyone could disagree with him. Towards the end of the interview, when the host re-iterated that it was a "fantasy game", Hitchens finally chimed in "I understand perfectly, I'm not as slow on the uptake as you seem to have supposed."
@TruthSurge If I'm not mistaken, she is referring to the ridiculous game/interview where Way of the Master radio host Todd Friel patronizingly kept interrupting Hichens when he was trying to explain himself by endlessly repeating "we're just playing a game" and "this is just hypothetical" while interspersing his pre-scripted, dogmatic jargon.
People fall back on this ludicrous hypothesis to avoid fine tuning in allot of cases. MWH is essentially an effort on the part of partisans of chance to multiply their probabilistic resources in order to reduce the improbability of the occurrence of fine-tuning. The very fact that otherwise sober scientists must resort to such a remarkable hypothesis is a sort of backhanded compliment to the design hypothesis. It shows that the fine-tuning does cry out for explanation
'Morality is doing what is right, no matter what you are told. Religion is doing what you are told, no matter what is right.' HL Mencken. This was essentially the view Hitchens took. That God made us does not oblige us to become his slave. Grateful? Perhaps, but God also made us sick and imperfect and demands we are well. His terms or die. Immorality at its best. As for shedding childhood indoctrination (as in my own case). Yes, it is difficult. You embrace that terrible reality and it's like having a week to live with no time off work. But I have to say that after a period of time, life does become more meaningful and purposeful.
The problem with faith is, while it can empower people to get through some of life's challenges, it can encourage people to commit acts of hate & violence against those who's faith, culture, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc, is different. There are countless Native American tribes that were wiped out, every man, women, & child because, they refused to except Christianity. Tribes like the Cherokee were forced marched over 500 miles from Florida to Oklahoma during the depth of winter, etc.
@FirstResponder911 thanks! I approved yer friend request, btw. I gotta get busy and get some stuff done. my dang sleep schedule is hosed. anyway, thanks and I plan to do some more vids about everything I like. :) uh, and don't like. heheh
The cat is linked to you, it is your pet, it shares your space, your home, your life, your air, your food and your affection and you communicate non-verbally. On the subatomic level, you and the cat are indistinguishable, made of the exact same things. Thanks for providing a perfect example of the link we all share.
Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of our universe’s low entropy condition obtaining by chance alone are on the order of 1:1010(123), an inconceivable number. If our universe were but one member of a multiverse of randomly ordered worlds, then it is vastly more probable that we should be observing a much smaller universe.
I enjoy your show, I share your attitude. Please don't forget, people inherit their religion, they are not logically, rationally talked into their beliefs. But that's no reason to stop the show.
Presuppositional apologetics...you start by pre-supposing the very claim you're trying to establish. There's no other area in life in which that's considered a legitimate debate tactic.
+Lemonducky86 I thought it was a sendup at first. Had to double check if Wretched Radio was real. Of course, the genius behind it is none other than Kirk "Crocoduck" Cameron and Ray "The Banana" Comfort.
Having listened to the interview between Friel and Hitchens, it demonstrates that religious apologetics is a diversionary tactic that distracts people from the real impetus behind religious belief - and that driving force is an emotional attachment to that belief system. The emotional attachment is strong because religion was indoctrinated into the believer at a time where he was emotionally vulnerable. Religious apologetics is merely an attempt to rationalize the irrational.
Wow Tracey real nailed it. God is really a projected father figure and Hitchens is rebellious as many of us would be regarding a harsh demanding father that demanded fealty.
I had to go back and re watch it. I was afraid that I had missed the part where Tracie said that Friel reminded Hitchens that the hypothetical is that God is real and Hitchens said I understand. After careful analyzing the tape with Government equipment I can verify that Tracie did indeed say that Friel reminded Hitchens that the hypothetical is that God is real and Hitchens said I understand.
Within all of philosophy, the only true neutral position on any matter is weak agnosticism, in other words to say, "I don't know." This is the only default position within all of philosophy, since the beginning point for all philosophical matters is ignorance on the matter. Anything outside this position is a belief, even if that is a belief that it can be, or it can't be, or we can't know. The only position that does not have faith is not to have a belief at all: weak agnosticism.
496...nice. Perfect indeed. I really like her voice aswell. Her smooth velvety tone is the only reason I could listen to her repeat the same sentence 17 times ha ha. It's like a sexy broken record.
Christopher Hitchens was a very brilliant man. I wish he was still with us because I just love to hear him talk. I agree with every word he said. R. I. P. Mr Hitchens.
*No one asked to be born. We are not obligated to anyone.*
ken thomas wow that’s so true
I agree with you 💯
Frail human perception will NOT decide what is TRUE!
Only speak for your own frail perception.
That's true. I am not responsible for what the first two humans supposedly did thousands of years before my birth, nor did I ever ask Jesus to die for me. Telling me he made a sacrifice for me is nothing more than trying to guilt trip me into worshiping him.
Some of us are EXTREMELY dissatisfied with this event even!
Christopher Hitchens - Playing 'What if' on Wretched Radio [2009]
The "interview" Tracie was talking about.
Sir Derpius Maximus III thank you!
One of my favorites.
thank you...
Bless you for the link
that was brutal
I just wanted to say I love Tracie and Matt - you make my youtube day.
i think they're fucking amazing too and scotch does work :D
Mayke aye gewd, stronge, faurt weeth yore but
Love Tracie...can't get enough of her ideas and perspective.
Matt: People forgot you were even on the line
Caller: I did too.
🤣🤣
My favorite point that Hitchens made during that interview was to give an example of the relationship between him and his kids, basically saying, 'I had some part in making them but at some point you need to let them go, anything less would make me a tyrant'. Paraphrased of course, but this worshipful mindset really struck me as being an example of where and when these religions from. An era and a place where kings were worshipped and a man was king of his home. I can't think of a single thing more pathetic than that. Not one.
'I'm glad you think it's a game'
Super funny interview. 'What if'
I have been dealing with a person who is just like the person confronting Hitchens for over 3 years, they refuse to believe that someone could read their book, understand what is written, and not agree with it. The most common accusation is that "you didn't read the book", or "you didn't read it properly", and by properly they mean as a tabula rasa, with nothing in your brain to start with, everything that you have ever learned must be discarded and forgotten.
No wonder the book wasn't worth reading... if the author expects you to read it with "cleared mind" then he obviously wrote it that way... what a horrible waste of paper if the ideas can only stand on their own and not in any other context than the one he intends you to follow...
"The most common accusation is that "you didn't read the book", or "you didn't read it properly""
I just realized, how I've seen/heard/been a part of similar argument, with many non-religious topics.
(granted, I might have let similar thing slip out of my mouth, time or two in the past)
Basically, when ever someone is not agreeing with their taste of X, they are baffled by this idea, and only solution in their mind is that, that someone just hasn't experience that X properly.
"you don't like this food? Well, you've just been eating the low quality school lunch versions, not properly done ones"
+atlachanacha
I usually answer: "And what make you think YOU read it properly?"
This is such a beautiful example Tracie gave talking about the interview with Hitchens and a non-comprehension christian - I've been following the atheist experience and other atheist to christian debates on youtube, and I am stilled baffled by this voluntary idiocy so many christians seem to adopt.
Christa Stempel Religion is a binkie that many do not want to give up.
I seen the interview they refer to like 5 hours ago so not surprised I got recommended this
It's the black knight syndrome. Apologetics is one thing. Creationism is another completely. The evidence is not hard to understand. To me, the argument against God seems strong but the evidence for evolution is simply undeniable. Yet their brains simply won't allow it. One can destroy a creationist and prove evolution with overwhelming evidence and the creationist would still say things like "There's absolutely no evidence.". It's the black knight. "It's only a flesh wound. I've had worse."
In my opinion, the arguments against the existence of God are very weak arguments, and most of them are emotional. One of the issues with evolution is taking the fundamental definition of the word, "evolution", which basically means, "change over time"; and extrapolating on that to force the concept that life forms originated from one common denominator, branching out into all the extreme and complex diversity that we observe today. We know much more than Darwin did in his day, and more than 150 years later we can observe the tiny molecular motors in living cells. Darwin did not have the tools in which to perceive such amazing complexity. Had he known what we do today about the many molecular machines, he might have changed his thinking. Regarding evolution, no one argues against the idea that in time things change, they vary, they adapt. But what has not been proven, since there is absolutely no evidence for this, is the fallacy that any organism, animal, plant, etc., can horizontally morph to a totally different family of classification (canine to feline, for example). There is no empirical evidence for that ideology. The design argument makes much, much more rational sense than the idea that random chance occasions magically caused all of what we observe today. The truth is that there is so much information in the cell that calls for a designer, since the building code information in the cell cannot derive from random processes. Information/language always sources back to an intelligent mind - always!
@@WienArtist There aren't many arguments against the existence of god. There are a few. But that's how it would be. Can you give me reasons why you don't believe in Bigfoot without talking about the lack of evidence?
They only look like Evinrude outboard motors when looking at diagrams.
I agree that canines can't change into felines. But they do have a common ancestor.
@@PaulTheSkeptic Bigfoot? Come on now! That's a false analogy. Besides, you make the assumption that I do not believe in some character called Bigfoot. I never made that assertion.
I don't understand what you are attempting to convey with the comparison to outboard motors, when you used the word, "they". Who are they?
Common ancestor? That is evolutionist tripe! Common Designer, yes! However, the evidence is that our current dogs were once wolves, but still in the canine kingdom.
@@WienArtist It wasn't an analogy. It was a direct question. Of course I assumed you don't believe in Bigfoot. Do you? If so I'll just come up with another example of something people believe in but you don't. The point has nothing to do with comparing God to Bigfoot in any sense. It doesn't matter what what it is. It just has to be something you don't believe in. How about the god Apollo? Do you have evidence that Apollo does not exist? No, you just don't have evidence that he does. That's the point.
Creationists bring up the flagellar motor as an example of obvious design. In reality it's just a bunch of squishy stuff that allows a cell to move. "They" in this case are the flagellar motors. "They" only look like Evinrude outboard motors in molecular diagrams.
So, you think the similarities we find in interrelated species throughout all life is because of a common designer? Is that what you're saying?
It's a common misunderstanding that evolution means that a species will change into something else entirely. That never happens. Humans are still eukaryotes. Everything is what it was. We are still correctly and currently classified as apes and as monkeys, primates, mammals, tetrapods, vertebrates, chordates, deuterostomes, animals and eukaryotes. Animals evolve from basal to specialized. Once an organism becomes highly specialized to exploit a niche, they become dependant on that niche. For example, vultures are highly specialized to fly for hours searching for carrion. They can eat things so toxic it would kill you or me. If that food source became unavailable, they'd go extinct and allow a more basal animal to fill that niche if it became available again. So long periods of stasis in between extinction events is common. Imagine you drop a glass of milk. There's an initial explosion but as the milk trickles across the floor and fills in the cracks, everything slows down and it stays there until the mop of extinction comes along to clean it.
@@PaulTheSkeptic Whether I believe in the existence of a being called, Bigfoot is irrelevant to comparing my relevance to my belief in God. There are many things that scientists believe in yet are not able to see. Seeing is not the all-encompassing touchstone that something exists. However, in many cases of things we cannot see, we believe in them because of the evidence. This is directly associated with a belief in God, not gods mind you.
There are many false gods mentioned in the Holy Bible. But because people invent false gods does nothing to diminish or eliminate the one true God. All of the false gods (we call them idols) are inventions of mankind to attempt to understand events that prior to scientific discoveries, no one knew. Take Thor for example. It was thought that he was the god of thunder. But later the true reason for lightning and thunder was discovered, and Thor's existence faded into oblivion. However, the existence of the Creator of the universe and all that is, has nothing to do with trying to invent an explanation.
Truthfully, the idea of God is implanted deep within all of us at our birth. It is referred to as the Sensus divinitatis ("sense of divinity"), also referred to as sensus deitatis ("sense of deity") or semen religionis ("seed of religion"), is a term first used by French Protestant reformer John Calvin to describe an innate human sense of God. Instead of knowledge of the environment (as with, for example, smell or sight), the sensus divinitatis gives humans a knowledge of God.
In Calvin's view, there is no reasonable non-belief. Neo-Calvinists who adhere to the school of Christian apologetics sometimes appeal to a sensus divinitatis to argue that there are no genuine atheists:
“That there exists in the human mind and indeed by natural instinct, some sense of Deity [sensus divinitatis], we hold to be beyond dispute, since God himself, to prevent any man from pretending ignorance, has endued all men with some idea of his Godhead…. …this is not a doctrine which is first learned at school, but one as to which every man is, from the womb, his own master; one which nature herself allows no individual to forget."
Analytic philosopher Alvin Plantinga of the University of Notre Dame posits a modified form of the sensus divinitatis whereby all have the sense, only it does not work properly in some humans, due to sin's noetic effects. In other words, due to the effect of our sinful nature which interferes with the proper utility of our cognitive awareness.
Are you attempting to argue that because God cannot be seen (he cannot because he is spirit), that he therefore does not exist. That is a very puny and empty argument, as I have already pointed out that seeing is not proof that something exists or not. It might be true that even if God would make himself visible that some people would assume that they are experiencing a hallucination. And in many cases with atheists, they have an a priori rejection against any kind of evidence for God, simply because they do not want God to exist. As the former atheist C.S. Lewis pointed out, one can readily determine the reasons why an atheist rejects any evidence of God merely by following that person home. Truthfully, there are some atheists who wish to push God out of their minds (as if that would eliminate his existence) because they know that their lifestyle would require severe changes, and they do not desire to make such changes because they enjoy what they are doing, even though subconsciously they know full well that such actions are wrong. So what they do is attempt to remove God from his rightful place, and set themselves up as their own little god. I have listened to enough of the late Christopher Hitchens's arguments to know that was the case for him.
How about the god Apollo? Do you have evidence that Apollo does not exist? No, you just don't have evidence that he does. That's the point. That is not the point! Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And there are plenty of great evidences for the existence of God.
Here's a question for you: What do you think is one of the best arguments for the existence of God, and why do you not accept that?
Creationists bring up the flagellar motor as an example of obvious design. In reality it's just a bunch of squishy stuff that allows a cell to move. "They" in this case are the flagellar motors. "They" only look like Evinrude outboard motors in molecular diagrams.
I suggest that you take some time to watch this intriguing video about molecular machines. The bacteria flagellum is only one example of the various other molecular machines.
ua-cam.com/video/7ToSEAj2V0s/v-deo.html
So, you think the similarities we find in interrelated species throughout all life is because of a common designer? Is that what you're saying?
More to the point of what I am trying to convey is the concept of intelligent design. This concept is not just a glib way of trying to sneak the idea of God into a person's perspective. Intelligent design is a scientific concept that is easily recognized in our daily life. Whenever we observe something that cannot be caused by any natural or materialistic process, we recognize that there was an intelligent mind behind it. Take the sculptures of the four Presidents atop Mount Rushmore. No one would view such remarkable works of art and say, „Wow, isn't amazing how the constant falling of rain, the wind, and sand hitting that mountain; created such amazing sculptures!“ That's ludicrous! Of course we know that such things are the product of intelligent minds. The same goes for books, or portraits, realistic paintings, or computer codes, or language of any kind - all of which are products of intelligent minds. Even as simple as walking along the beach, and seeing the word, "Hello" scrawled there is enough to convince you that it did not happen by natural forces - that some intelligent being inscribed that in the sand, even though you did not witness it.
No one would consider that a complex computer code or even the computer itself was the product of random chance happenings. That is exactly the connection with the digital information we find in DNA/RNA. It is a building code, a blueprint if you will, that contains all the information required to build every body plan in any biological organism. You cannot get information from chaotic, random chance, happenstance, evolutionary process. Information, regardless of its simplicity or complexity, always traces back to an intelligent mind. Always!
I LET go of religion....i've never been happier
Childhood indoctrination of religion is not discussed enough. It is very likely that the VAST number of callers were indoctrinated as children, but only attempt to use apologetics as an adult response. Hence, despite those apologetics getting debunked, they simply fall back on what they were taught before they possessed the critical faculties to address the matter with reason. In this sense, apologetics is merely post hoc arguments for already well-entrenched beliefs.
This is such an important point that Tracie is making. I know firsthand! I have been an "out-of-the-closet" atheist for some time now, and I STILL fight--on a very regular basis--the emotional pull of my childhood religious indoctrination, despite being a fairly well-studied atheism apologist.
Hitch was one of a kind. I think he booked himself on that show because he just wanted to have some fun :D
I mean, your parents are the ones who 'made' you. I do technically own my life thanks to them, but that still doesn't mean they own me or they are entitled to unconditional obligations. It's as George Carlin said: "obedience and respect shouldn't be automatic. It should be earned by the parents, based on their performance".
Great analysis of that interview. It was a surreal interview.
Ha ha , definitely the Scotch. Hitch has made note of that a time or two
Faith is the excuse people give for believing or accepting something when they can't provide a good reason.
Christopher Hitchens vs. Todd Friel interviews Radio
- Hilarious. My favourite retort: "It's only with gentle Jesus, meek and mild, that the idea of eternal torture for minor transgressions is introduced... so I'm not sure you know quite what you're talking about."
I saw that video with hitchens and the theist. It was just fun to watch. I've never seen anyone who could match Christopher hitchens intellect. I wish you were still alive in today's world.
I think Matt does an admirable job of confronting intuitive behavior that leads to irrational beliefs, but Hitchens added a vast amount of historical and literary context to how those beliefs have retarded our move to enlightenment. If you note, Hitchens wish was to be surrounded by interesting and ironic people and those qualities are quite rare on any side of a world view.
If I were in Hitchens' position I could imagine myself bellowing "I HEARD YOU THE FUCKING FIRST TIME!"
That's right, devout religious people can't understand viewpoints different from theirs because of the debilitating effect religion has had on them.
Hitchens was a monumental intellect, totally overshadowing all of the apologists he ever came in contact with. There was not a single theist/deist I am aware of who was able to adequately refute any of Hitchens' salient arguments.
what I remember vaguely from that show
when the host said to hitchens: god is responsible for everything in your life, he owns you, then would you not obligated to respect him?
Hitchens said: He didnt give me everything, he didnt give me right to not be owned and to criticise him(but hitchens is still doing it) then I dont repsect him.
Respect for Hitch.
too many people presume that understanding demands agreement and that disagreement demonstrates failure to understand. my own mother does this: you're either misinformed, brainwashed or just plain stupid if you don't accept her opinions. i attribute the misconception to the common apprehension that they cannot be right if you are not wrong. while that's often true, they always assume it's a zero-sum game. and the more closely-held and/or deeply-ingrained an opinion, the more personal criticism of it becomes ...
The Hitchens/Friel interview was a thing of beauty - the best instance I've ever heard of someone using the Ray Comfort apologetic and getting thrown completely off his script.
LOVE this show!!! Keep spreading Knowledge, Love and Peace !!!! My heart goes out to Christopher as well, I hope his cancer goes into remission!! I HOPE more than anything we can find a cure!!
Miss ya’ Hitch. It’s kinda nice to know your molecules are out there somewhere. You were punk rock. 🤟
Yes, saying that we should grovel before a god under threat of eternal torture just because he/she created you is basically the same as saying that parents should be allowed to murder their children because they gave them life.
I heard that interview years ago. Just re-listened. Hilarious. Hitch getting it and...being Hitch. Host continuously reminding him "it's what if"...completely NOT getting that Hitch WAS completely getting it.
Run through the Ten Commandments How will you fare on Judgement Day part... And, like a brainless quiz on FB, Hitch's answers "consigned him to hell". (As, of course, any but a perfect score would. And non-perfection is baked in. Half-baked in?)
Including "wishing someone dead" equivocal to murder. Thought crime. Hitch pointing out that, no, the 10C were OT...and it wasn't til the NT, with "Gentle Jesus Meek & Mild that the concept of eternal torture was introduced".
And, final laugh (and truest thing host said) with the sign off. "THIS...is Wretched Radio." Yes it is. Perfectly, divinely even, wretched.
***** sorry, but note the "that I heard years ago". I don't even recall what podcast I heard it on, much less which episode. So no, not gonna look for days, probably still not finding it, to satisfy a stranger's one word request on UA-cam.
*****. You could find the original maybe. Google Hitchens, Christian radio interview, wretched radio. I think the interviewer was Todd Friehl.
I'm an Englishman, aged 45, from a family where religion meant nothing, and I still remember my first day of school in 1972.
We were marched into "assembly" to recite what seemed like one long, gibberish word (it turned out to be the Lord's Prayer), and then preached to by the head-master about what were - I presume - extracts from the Bible. I had never heard of that book, had no idea why I should regard it as an authority, and none of it was ever explained.
Life-long atheism was assured.
I wanna hear her talk more, this was amazing.
I love Tracie!!!
"What part of 'I understand' do you not understand?"
Tracie brings up some really strong points, and points I have encountered in discussions with Christians, Mormons and Jehovahs witnesses. the indoctrination and underlying fear has them so immobilized that they are unable to really hear anything other than there own internal dialogue of unworthiness
Hitchens should have turned the table on Todd and asked him if god were shown not to exist what would be the consequences for him.
at the end at first it sounds like matt calls the caller "some guy" it made me laugh.
Yes I too find the believer's mindset is truly fascinating.
Hah! If only I had checked this 10 minutes earlier. I have that interview bookmarked!
I've listened to that video too, several times. Hitchens was such a fuckin awesome guy!
That interview was ridiculous and hilarious at the same time. I loved hearing Hitchens take his whole argument and cram it down that guys throat.
People around the world can attest to the fact that cold records are being broken, the oceans are not rising and that tropical storms vary in severity from year-to-year as they always have.
@ac1th
She's describing an interview where the interviewer kept repeating the same point, again and again. I saw the interview, and she nailed it.
I saw that interview on UA-cam. But the end of it I want to spend a day or two in a Sensory Deprivation Tank.
The interview is on youtube, Hitchens' responses were brilliant!
She's talking about Todd Friel, the loon of loons.
Sadly, this is an accurate description of that interview.
I love posts like yours....it makes the dance worthwhile....
Thanks for sharing
@jed clampett, For what purpose?
If you want to convince people that god does this or god wants that, you first have to convince people that god is more than an imaginary character created for the purpose of political control.
If the post I was responding to was from before the change to the new UA-cam comment system, then he did not choose to make replies impossible.
Return of the Jed-I Clampett
Two pieces of gold are linked in that they are both made of gold, possibly from the same gold mine, sub atomicly identical, same color, shape etc... So they are linked in the same way we are all linked. Thanks for another great example!
@sailornaruto39 I agree with your last sentence; the question is not whether Christopher Hitchens would submit to an almighty deity for fear of eternal damnation (if such an entity existed), but whether that deity would be justified in making anyone do so, for the simple reason that we are his creation.
Stay strong kid!
Yes I understand, a hypothetical Hitchens and a hypothetical christian were debating and that this hypothetical Hitchens understood that the hypothetical god was hypothetical.
"...He could not grasp that somebody could understand the scenario that he's explaining and not agree with his own conclusions."
I know exactly what this is like. I have had so many arguments where the other person acts like this. Most often with Christians and feminists. Yes, I understand that your faith gives you comfort; no, that does not prove it's real. Yes, I understand that sexism still exists; no, that does not prove that all women are victims of it and men never are.
R.I.P. Hitch.
Tracie Harris's analysis right at the beginning about how early indoctrination creates a locked door seemed right on the money to me. That's why the apologetics as she says are all over the place. Cradle catholics are a case in point. Take any one you like and pursue any line of questions in however friendly a way you will eventually come that locked door. It must be like living(as I once did)in the old west Berlin: every single road in the city led eventually to the Berlin Wall or a closed gate
Read "The Cat in the Hat" by Dr. Seuss.
It's fewer pages than Jed's book and won't try to sell you anything.
The interview that Tracy is referring to was unbelievable!! A must see! Hitchens crucified him.
If humans are created capable of thinking things through entirely, while also knowing they must reject all they have been able to understand, that doesn't sound like something to be grateful for. That sounds like a curse.
God gave me a brain.
I used it.
Now I’m an atheist.
-numerous Internet users
I've got to watch this interview! Be back soon! Get well soon Hitchens!
The interview she was talking about is on youtube called todd friel interviews christopher hitchens on "wretched radio"
I love these people.
THE BEST VIDEO OF TRACIE HARRIS!!! SHE TALKING EASY AND CLEAR TOO!!!
After the third time, if that many, I would tell Friel, "Asked and answered. Next question."
Tracy made such a good point from the start there!
I just watched the video Tracie's talking about, and it amazes me that the host obviously didn't even SKIM Hitchens' book before having him on, or he would have handled the answers better, knowing what was coming. Instead he just thought "My side is obviously right, so I'll just stun this Hitchens guy with my brilliance."
He then proceeds to show exactly how monumentally you can fail if you choose to have god on your side, instead of knowledge that he could have had by just reading a book.
@TruthSurge Fair enough, but in the original interview that I'm talking about (which you may have already heard) Friel kept repeating that very thing. So, in essence, I think she was just emphasizing how many times Friel was doing just that: redundantly repeating himself and patronizing Hitchens. Thus, as I said, he was following his little script designed by Ray Comfort. But, like I said, I take your point.
I think it may also prove helpful to some of the viewers here to try to evaluate many of the more strident claims of the anti-theist critique ("brights") from a ideological/ metaphysics perspective. Check out the recent article by Jackson Lears in the May 16, 2011 issue of the The Nation entitled "Same Old New Atheism" .The article offers a compelling analysis of Sam Harris' works. Consideration is given to general atheistic social perspectives
@BANGBANGBANGBBANG Actually, Tracy's recounting of the interview is fairly accurate. I just listened to the entire interview. It's obvious that the radio host could not understand how anyone could disagree with him. Towards the end of the interview, when the host re-iterated that it was a "fantasy game", Hitchens finally chimed in "I understand perfectly, I'm not as slow on the uptake as you seem to have supposed."
@TruthSurge If I'm not mistaken, she is referring to the ridiculous game/interview where Way of the Master radio host Todd Friel patronizingly kept interrupting Hichens when he was trying to explain himself by endlessly repeating "we're just playing a game" and "this is just hypothetical" while interspersing his pre-scripted, dogmatic jargon.
People fall back on this ludicrous hypothesis to avoid fine tuning in allot of cases.
MWH is essentially an effort on the part of partisans of chance to multiply their probabilistic resources in order to reduce the improbability of the occurrence of fine-tuning.
The very fact that otherwise sober scientists must resort to such a remarkable hypothesis is a sort of backhanded compliment to the design hypothesis. It shows that the fine-tuning does cry out for explanation
I understand that he understood.... I understand
'Morality is doing what is right, no matter what you are told. Religion is doing what you are told, no matter what is right.' HL Mencken.
This was essentially the view Hitchens took. That God made us does not oblige us to become his slave. Grateful? Perhaps, but God also made us sick and imperfect and demands we are well. His terms or die. Immorality at its best.
As for shedding childhood indoctrination (as in my own case). Yes, it is difficult. You embrace that terrible reality and it's like having a week to live with no time off work. But I have to say that after a period of time, life does become more meaningful and purposeful.
The problem with faith is, while it can empower people to get through some of life's challenges, it can encourage people to commit acts of hate & violence against those who's faith, culture, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc, is different. There are countless Native American tribes that were wiped out, every man, women, & child because, they refused to except Christianity. Tribes like the Cherokee were forced marched over 500 miles from Florida to Oklahoma during the depth of winter, etc.
@FirstResponder911 thanks! I approved yer friend request, btw. I gotta get busy and get some stuff done. my dang sleep schedule is hosed. anyway, thanks and I plan to do some more vids about everything I like. :) uh, and don't like. heheh
@thelordmemnoch yeah, maybe she thought we needed to feel Hitch's pain. haha
The cat is linked to you, it is your pet, it shares your space, your home, your life, your air, your food and your affection and you communicate non-verbally. On the subatomic level, you and the cat are indistinguishable, made of the exact same things. Thanks for providing a perfect example of the link we all share.
To clarify, I was suggesting the woman provide the URL to the person who called, not to me.
Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of our universe’s low entropy condition obtaining by chance alone are on the order of 1:1010(123), an inconceivable number. If our universe were but one member of a multiverse of randomly ordered worlds, then it is vastly more probable that we should be observing a much smaller universe.
I didn't quote anything...I simply remembered reading it...
I've watched the video to which she refers. While I found it really, really funny - somehow, her rendition of it is even funnier. Thank you.
maybe i should have said...i stopped believing...and i've never been happier
We don't even need to blindly obey our parents who brought us into this world. No one should dictate to us. Not even the imaginary "God".
I enjoy your show, I share your attitude. Please don't forget, people inherit their religion, they are not logically, rationally talked into their beliefs. But that's no reason to stop the show.
Presuppositional apologetics...you start by pre-supposing the very claim you're trying to establish. There's no other area in life in which that's considered a legitimate debate tactic.
Man, I really need to watch this Hitch clip
+Lemonducky86 Did you ever watch it? It's funny.
+Mick Craven Sure did. I started talking very forcefully to my computer just like Tracie lol.
+Lemonducky86 I thought it was a sendup at first. Had to double check if Wretched Radio was real. Of course, the genius behind it is none other than Kirk "Crocoduck" Cameron and Ray "The Banana" Comfort.
Wow, seriously? I expect no less from Banana Man and the infamous Crocoduck father.
Can you imagine those two talking? I bet the air is thick with regret of past sins and homosexual denial.
Having listened to the interview between Friel and Hitchens, it demonstrates that religious apologetics is a diversionary tactic that distracts people from the real impetus behind religious belief - and that driving force is an emotional attachment to that belief system. The emotional attachment is strong because religion was indoctrinated into the believer at a time where he was emotionally vulnerable. Religious apologetics is merely an attempt to rationalize the irrational.
Wow Tracey real nailed it. God is really a projected father figure and Hitchens is rebellious as many of us would be regarding a harsh demanding father that demanded fealty.
This is one of my favorite Hitchens interviews. I love when he says "None of your fucking business!" EPIC WIN.
I had to go back and re watch it. I was afraid that I had missed the part where Tracie said that Friel reminded Hitchens that the hypothetical is that God is real and Hitchens said I understand.
After careful analyzing the tape with Government equipment I can verify that Tracie did indeed say that Friel reminded Hitchens that the hypothetical is that God is real and Hitchens said I understand.
Here are the Coles Notes for the entire argument.
Freil: What if ......
Hitchens: So what!
Agreed, respect is earned, not taken, anything else is most likely some sort of fear mongering.
Whether you care or not, the facts are the facts. Feel free to look it up.
No, provide your sources turd.
just because your parents made you, it doesn't mean that you are obliged to obey them
Within all of philosophy, the only true neutral position on any matter is weak agnosticism, in other words to say, "I don't know." This is the only default position within all of philosophy, since the beginning point for all philosophical matters is ignorance on the matter.
Anything outside this position is a belief, even if that is a belief that it can be, or it can't be, or we can't know. The only position that does not have faith is not to have a belief at all: weak agnosticism.
Tracie is the best TAE presenter.
496...nice. Perfect indeed. I really like her voice aswell. Her smooth velvety tone is the only reason I could listen to her repeat the same sentence 17 times ha ha. It's like a sexy broken record.