Jazzkeyboardist1 Christopher mocking religion wasn’t the reason she killed herself. And also wise men speak against lies and deceit and delusion, which is what religion is
I swear when people try to sound 'smart' asking a deeply religious question its like: "How do you resolve the thinking that you can be more, or greater even, than the supposed assumptions presented before and even pre-dating the stance you seem to support? Or say you can have what you said but have it happen some where that might be counter to it? What would you think about that scenario even though it might not agree entirely with your position?"
Cargo cult philosophy. These people know what philosophical questions SOUND LIKE but they don't know how to use philosophical concepts in a coherent, meaningful way. So the result is garbled, multi-syllabic jibberish.
Mox Newswatcher Welcome to religious apologetics. The art of defending the indefensible. If you feel the need to put "apologize" into the name of your craft, then that's a strong indication that what you're defending was bullshit to begin with.
I didn't find the questions to be incoherent, but rather I found them to be menacing and playful because of the way the disjunctive perturbation of the figurative-narrative line-space matrix brought a metaphorical resonance within the realm of discourse by the distinctive formal juxtapositions presented therein.
I fully agree that this guy is "lacking" in the sense of intellect. But it actually was a pun, about breaking bread, when used in the context of religion.
the last guy, talking to Hitchens from 4.17 should be a character on the Office. It takes great skill to put words together that sound like they are saying something deep and meaningful, but are utter nonsense, devoid of any meaning at all (Chopra is the expert here).
I LOVE that Dawkins really tries to be polite and offer some kind of cogent response to an incoherent question, but Hitchens just says "You're talking bollocks. Next."
@@JackieChandler69 It might be, but I’m not so sure. The Myers-Briggs personality schema could be correct or else it may just be yet another pseudoscience. Still, I find it interesting that Richard Dawkins conforms rather well to the characteristics of the INTP, especially in terms of trying to understand issues from all angles and very patiently (and diplomatically) explaining and debating the ideas, whereas Hitchens conforms rather strongly to the INTJ schema in that he has very little patience for nonsense and possesses both the drive and the self-assurance to let it be known. Unless you’ve got a better explanation, I’ll hedge my bets and say there could still be something in it, but I’m prepared to be wrong. Are you?
@@brennenconlee437 Yes, yes. They’re subjective, which any psychologist will tell you when you take the test, because the subject has to confirm whether or not the profile matches their own self-perception. Here’s the thing, though: just because it isn’t scientifically reproducible doesn’t mean it isn’t valid. We are, after all, dealing with people and people don’t fit neatly into fixed categories or scientific heuristics.
Ioulia 07 different levels of autism are definitely there. I know of one example personally of an autistic child that still has no idea he is, because he is fully capable of functioning adequately in society. (This might say something about the average american's math skills though)
Had to take the time to transcribe the guy from 4:17 A thought I had, based on an idea that the materialisation from pre-existence into existence then concluding with post-existence, one might assert a lack of definitive strength regarding post-existence, as the absolute final end. I just want to touch on the notion of what appears to be emerging from non-existence, and I understand that there signs saying that things have happened and I’m really not in either one of your corners, I feel. But I feel like this is substantial for me [DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION???] yeah the question is I’m trying to generate some feedback because I think maybe we could humble down and say hey, you know, we are somewhat in the unknown, based on linguistics, and we are somehow trapped in this sense of the unknown, I mean, you may feel, I know you are science-based, I know you are somewhat religious-based, but this merging out of non-existence, into existence, and then back into post-existence, do you see a pattern there, a 0-1-0 pattern [DO YOU WANT DINESH OR CHRISTOPHER TO ANSWER THAT???] and then row 4 would indicate if you feel that that pattern, I would suggest a “1”, now just tell me what’s your general idea that is your sense of that, not necessarily taking it to probatum.
I do get his point now, taking it slowly, but for him to think that just because we didn't exist, and now we do, and soon we won't means that we have to exist again after we won't is quite silly. If I take water and freeze it into ice, and then let it melt, does that mean that the water will be ice again next? Maybe it will be steam next.
GunsGiftsGalleries because it is. the guy is taking gibberish due to too much infusion oh Deepal chopra garbage or outright trolling by trying to. bait CH into parsing gibberish in public.
No, it's really not that hard to understand what he's saying. He's commenting on the position that atheists hold in that we started as non-existent beings, we then came into existence as beings of life, and that we would then go back to being non-existent beings when we die, hence his statement of the "0-1-0 pattern." He then proposes to Hitchens that if we were to follow this pattern, it would make sense that we would come back into existence again and support the religious notion that we would enter into the afterlife, at least, that's what I anticipate his argument would be. In fact, none of these questions could really be called incoherent. They are phrased in complex ways, but certainly not incoherent. I'm disappointed by the listening skills of the atheist community.
UndertakerU2ber no... the next 1 is NOT comming from the last 1. it is a new integer entirely. So no. he just took a really simple idea and made it complex for no reason.
UndertakerU2ber lmao no. The thing is Christopher Hitchens could have asked those questions 10x better, shorter and well said and so can any other person that knows how to ask a good question. These people were just awful at explaining themselves
It's 2:00am in bangladesh and i am watching all these great videos of dawkins and hitchens... They r like feasts for ur brain... And i dont think i will ever be full....
Caterpillar, oh, yes, they do, even very smart people, maybe especially smart people, after all, if they can CONCEIVE that we might all be manifestations in some giant alien computer, then it is PROBABLE that we must be, hence, computer, so 0 - 1 - 0 and eternal life in the cosmic cloud of data forever and ever, R'amen, and that final "1" = all their memories somehow recovered from their dead lives and made permanent...oh, it burns! It BURNS! Like their consciousness can be recovered after their deaths and would automatically somehow be in binary code! Well, if we WERE a big computer program, then maybe, but otherwise? Sheesh.
"Science is looking for some *kind* of understanding or explanation of the world." It's like a billion eyes rolled at that moment and then disappeared from existence.
"materialisation from pre-existence, into existence, then concluding with post-existence, one might assert a lack of definitive strength regarding post-existence as the absolute final end" it seems to be the American way to use ten words when one will do! the dude should have just admitted he believes there must be life after death.
I wonder how many of those religious loons later ended up on UA-cam, saying: "Hey, that was me! I was debating Hitchens and Dawkins! And I totally destroyed them!" Seriously, I do not envy Dawkins his job. It's like talking to the village idiot, telling him on a daily basis, "please, wear your pants!", and every day you get the same response.
I think the last guy was trolling? All he asked was do you see a "0,1,0" pattern in our "pre-existence, existence and post-existence" and what they're thoughts are on that. That has to be a troll question because it's just an empty question really. Yes, I see a pattern. No, I don't have any thoughts on it. Done.
M3Lucky He sounds like he has schizophrenia. Schizophrenics tend to speak in word salad, or logically incoherent sentences that make perfect sense to them, but not to anyone else. The fact that he's making up words like "post-existence" also fits pretty well.
M3Lucky Maybe just a computer geek that is trying to grasp the universe in binary code. Linear thinkers generally can't grasp concepts that are not in the language they understand. Too bad English was not that language.
"You are saying, let's use belligerent words, let's use cold capricious words, and say this is the way it has to be written." Wow. I could break bread with this guy. Forgive the pun.
Miguel Favela obviously somebody that lives in Hong Kong..... named David. You DO realize that there is no physical reason why a person of a different race or cultural background can't live somewhere other than their home-land, right?
Miguel Favela David Whitton mentioned an important subject and Dawkins couldn't even understand it, less answer him something of value. Whitton asked him about those experiences in life which are ineffable, that go beyond literal concepts and ideas... In doing so he pointed out that is useless to grasp life through them. Life is not about that, life is experiencing the moment.. and my opinion is that we need both science and religion to be able do that. Through the art of science we can test and endlessly question our own understanding of the universe. In looking those explanations is easier to wonder about the perfection of nature and to feel part of it. I agree with Dawkins, dogmatism and religious institutions most die. But dismissing religion because of it's theory is to misunderstand it. Religion is a practice, and all of them promote meditation, kindness and to love ourselves and one another. Jesus didn't talk to "god". That's only a metaphor of meditation, and the experience of stepping out of himself. As humans we need to construct our own understanding of the universe, let's practice science and religion and stop wasting time convincing each other of personal ideas and belief systems, trying to prove the other one wrong. Why still focusing in the superficial stereotypical stories?
multifacetica23 religion supports kindness and love? When did that start? Let's see, lovingly condemning homosexuals, kindly keeping women down as second class beings or chat tell, smiling as they torture or kill those who do not agree with them, and so on. I paraphrase Hitchens. Just because religion is benign where you live today does not mean you can forget how it acted when religion was strong.
The first clip is not an incoherent question. The man is basically stating that he believes discussing the substantiating evidence for religion is inconsequential for him, as he's witnessed first hand the "curse of a religious state". That is to say, regardless of any substantive evidence for religion, it's no way to rule a society. Christopher Hitchens understood and agreed with this point, which is why he said "Good for you".
"Existence, Post-existence, blah blah...1, 0, 1, 0 pattern, yadda yadda... I would suggest a 1" What the fuck man, just say you believe in reincarnation and ask for Hitchens' take on it. I hope he was just trolling.
2:30 What’s so complicated about this? He’s simply saying that the deep-seated parts of our minds that crave something to fill the void, aren’t best served by only facts. It’s a useful remark, in that, although religious books may have originally been science/history textbooks, they have survived the 20th century, not as books of facts, but as a tool to cultivate community, transcendental experience, and consolation in times of grief. As secular anti-theists, we will eventually have to address these issues to remove religion entirely. We need to prove to folks that “no after-life” isn’t just true, but preferable.
This concern for "experience" over thoughts and ideas has some overlap with the goals of mindfulness practice. So the caller wasn't completely misguided, just not good at expressing his motivation for raising the subject. He's really just talking about human psychology or psychopathology. Neurologists are fond of saying "the neurons that fire together, wire together" as a way of describing how short term cognitive patterns gradually become habitual through repetition. In the modem world, we're obliged to do a lot of abstract or symbolic thinking, and of course this is because doing so serves us very well, in a functional sense, for solving complex social and technical problems. Even something as simple as balancing a household budget is a far more complex symbolic exercise than our ancestors of a thousand years ago had to deal with. Our minds through repeated practice end up dedicating a lot of neurological capacity to this way of thinking: what the caller clumsily called "thoughts and ideas." The downside is that we dedicate less cognitive bandwidth for direct experience of our senses. We habitually narrate the world to ourselves as we experience it, and this chatter, this stream of symbols and ideas about ideas about things, somewhat gets in the way of our ability to be nourished by the experience. We're not quite living in the moment, and that feels unsatisfying. It SHOULD feel unsatisfying, because that experience of the moment is the only contact we have with present reality. Hence mindfulness practice, to retrain the mind's neurology to enjoy being present to immediately experience, instead of flitting away on a stream of ideas. I think the caller was perhaps trying to get at this insight. Dawkins, as an evolutionary biologist, might have something interesting to say about it. But it's not a philosophical insight or a religious one, and the caller seems to suppose that it is somehow. Religion and philosophy offer their own streams of thoughts and ideas, which can be examined and discussed all we like. But that is not being in the present moment of experience, on the contrary.
the problem here is that the lack of evidence for God makes God a very abstract concept. And the arguments for God are sometimes so abstract that people have trouble putting them into words, creating this soup of gibberish that comes out of believers' mouths. What is funny is that if atheists made arguments like this, they'd be the first to say atheists are nuts.
LOL ... philosophical concepts are hard enough to put into words, let alone trying to make the ideas sound coherent when you're on the spot in front of an audience and sharp minds like Hitch and RD.
Christopher Hitchens. A man of substance, intellect and learning with an unsurpassable wit the likes of which will never be seen again in our age. Honest and open, a staunch fighter against the tyrannical megalomania of every religion. An advocate for free speech with warnings completely overlooked by the world which is all the poorer for it. A modern day prophet with a penchant for truth, a poet a genius and a Gentleman for all time. Rest in peace Sir, we salute you.
@@MR-intel Indeed sir, five years ago I wrote this message and have only just noticed this schoolboy error thanks to you...is it too late to blame auto correct? Probably tee hee. Thank you kind sir I will correct it immediately 👍
What do you think in regards to religion that people should be mindful of when talking about other subjects or better yet other people when trying to postulate a something that might not be exactly what you would think? Or what OTHERS may think if that's the case?
There were barely any questions in there...I think that would be why they were so incoherent, they were just people rambling trying to get people to hear them speak.
I think the first speaker was perfectly fine: We don't need to discuss islam to realize that theocracy is bad for you. You can judge theocracy by its results. The third speaker I think I understood too: religion offers people an experience, which can be true in another sense than the objective sense. It's hermeneutics. Two and four I don't get at all.
I agree with all those questions. If the conceptuality of non-existence can be experienced from the standpoint of the phenomenon per se, then the question of its perception naturally emerges as a thought process that calls for an answer in connection with the continuum from pre-existence to post-existence as it forms, so to speak, a constant pendulum of dialectical schemata which should and can be addressed on the basis of ontological arguments concerning the very nature of the question
I don't think the first one was a bad question or incoherent. It sounded garbled because one, he was clearly nervous and two, he was quite passionate about the topic. If he said why are we debating religious rule when all you have to do is live in Iran to see what a horrible idea that is, you'd all be cheering and calling for him to be in a different compilation.
Haha why was it that so many felt the need to fumble out a load of big words when speaking to Hitch? The exact definition of "lots to say about nothing".
I've asked questions like these before. I think these gentleman all genuinely wanted some input from the Hitchens and Dawkin on their own ideas, but just didn't think about it themselves enough. Sometimes the idea has to develop, and then you ask for thoughts, and perhaps not necessarily an answer to the question.
OK I got the last 2 questions without too much trouble, second last guy was saying that "Isn't it possible that our words and feelings aren't broad or deep enough to explain, describe or to even understand what it means to exist". meaning, we're not equipped to fully understand why we're alive and what it means to be alive, and never will be. And the last guy was saying, ok we went from nothing, to existing, and will eventually end up at not existing again. So what's the point in existing. ?
+Antony Quigley: I pretty much agree with your interpretation, but his question was not what the point is. His question was if he saw a pattern in it. That pattern is called generations and although Hitch isn't available to correct me, I dare say he was familiar with the concept. The question of what the point is, is one that Hitch would've been able to respond to and it's certainly not an uninteresting one. The "linguistics" certainly wasn't.
***** agreed. They're interesting questions. It's plainly obvious at the moment that we simply can't understand, never will be able to understand how the universe exists. It didn't get created by a being thats not part of space and time and is omnipotent. As the bible clearly states "god mad man in he's own image" so god is "Something" has he has an image, like a man. So that whole "God is outside the realm of being and space and time". Thats just a bollox argument. He is something if they believe in him. Otherwise how could we be made in "Hes Image". Meaning he looks like man. SO the argument "Something can't come from nothing, therefor tnhe universe had to have a creator". Thne the same is true for the creator, as the creator is clearly stated as being man like, then he couldn't have come from nothing, as he is something also. We are just not intelligent enough to understand the concept of no beginning. Just everlasting non begiing, non end. Nothing in nature that we know demonstrates this. So. The only think a Christian has ever said that makes sense is "The universe can't be infinite, as if it was, we could have never reached today. Due to the fact that there would have already have had t have been an infinite amount of time and events that have happened before we arrived at this day, which is impossible. Other wise what is today, Infinity and 1? And then there'd have to be an infinite amount of events to happen after today. If there has already been an infinite amount of days before today, we can never reach today, as we can't reach infinity. Do you get me? It's an impossible question to answer. Also, If the universe is infinte, the sun wouldn't be burning still. As it would have had to have been burning for infinity already.
@Serpico261 Thanks for your comment. Glad you enjoyed it. The most incoherent one was the last one. I really didn't have a clue what he was talking about.
"I am a scientist". That is not something a real scientist would say. He would say "I am an biochemist, I am a cosmologist, I am a theoretical particle physicist ..."
Are you serious? Of course it is acceptable to say "I am a scientist" without expanding the title. Just as I describe myself as an engineer. If it is appropriate I will expand that to electronic engineer at most. I, and most folks I know, don't really need further information unless it is specific to the conversation. Though I have noticed most "religious" types feel the need to expound they're cult affiliation in order to demonstrate they're superior belief system.
+Roedy Green LOL. So are you saying he was not a real scientist then. You'd better contact Oxford University then. They employed him as Professor of Zoology for decades.
And so was the one with Richard Dawkins on the phone around 2:40. He was implying that possibly there was a time where we couldn't explain anything and that learning religion let's say Christianity for example, he's implying that possibly people "worshiped" it in the sense of just taking from it what they will and applying to real life. For example, they learn to pray yet they apply that to their lives by thinking about the problem and not giving up hope because hope in some cases can be survival. I don't personally agree with it but at least I understand it...
Mythological truth is the continuity of formless timelessness. The presupposition is the presupposition to your own knowledge. Therefore, the most real truth differentiates into exponential power. - Wisdom of Peterson
He didn't say it was a requirement, merely that maybe seeing things from a different perspective would change things. If a mere bit of chemicals can change the entire fabric of your personal reality, even if it is only temporarily, what does that say for how you 'naturally' see reality?
"Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something." -Plato
Jazzkey...
And you like to think you are among the wise?
Amen
@Jazzkeyboardist1 And your point is?
Jazzkeyboardist1 Christopher mocking religion wasn’t the reason she killed herself. And also wise men speak against lies and deceit and delusion, which is what religion is
@Jazzkeyboardist1 Jealous are you? Why try to put Hitchens down? Are you THAT afraid that he's telling the truth? I think you are!
People that tried too hard to be smart, but ended up sounding foolish
Hahahahaahah good way of putting it
Yeah, it's quite funny. Smart people try very hard to be understood, while dumb people try very hard to appear smart.
They always sound foolish, it’s just when they challenge a genuine intellectual their stupidity is amplified.
I laugh so hard whenever Hitchens says "next"
what's so funny? lol
NEXT NEXT whatta a fkkin incoherent moron NEEXT!
What planet are these people on, couldn't make any sense of it. NEXT.
@@Mrz-sb1hw that's why they are religious nutters because what they say is nuts and unfounded, if you can even understand what they are saying.
Religious questioner: _Blah, blah, blah, God?_
Hitchens/Dawkins: _What?_
+Mark Hilton very well summarized.
I swear when people try to sound 'smart' asking a deeply religious question its like:
"How do you resolve the thinking that you can be more, or greater even, than the supposed assumptions presented before and even pre-dating the stance you seem to support? Or say you can have what you said but have it happen some where that might be counter to it? What would you think about that scenario even though it might not agree entirely with your position?"
Wow..I don't know how long it took you to write that but damn man, spot on. That's EXACTLY what it sounds like haha.
Mark Hilton Jesus is and has risen :)
Mat Lag not really
Cargo cult philosophy. These people know what philosophical questions SOUND LIKE but they don't know how to use philosophical concepts in a coherent, meaningful way. So the result is garbled, multi-syllabic jibberish.
"Cargo cult philosophy" - thats a great description!
Spot on!
Mox Newswatcher But what about the interconnectedness of the consciousness of the truth about GOD?!?
Checkmate, atheists!!1111oneone
Mox Newswatcher Deepak Chopra has made a career out of this.
Mox Newswatcher Welcome to religious apologetics. The art of defending the indefensible.
If you feel the need to put "apologize" into the name of your craft, then that's a strong indication that what you're defending was bullshit to begin with.
Funny watching people trying to match his level of articulation, only to fumble into nonsense. He must have thrived on that.
That last question was hilarious! WTF was he talking about!? And Hitchens response was priceless as usual hahaha
the first guy was on hitchen's side. Right? I have mild autism can you explain the first guy please? sorry
I didn't find the questions to be incoherent, but rather I found them to be menacing and playful because of the way the disjunctive perturbation of the figurative-narrative line-space matrix brought a metaphorical resonance within the realm of discourse by the distinctive formal juxtapositions presented therein.
canadianroot LOL < 3
canadianroot needed that laugh
canadianroot exactly, at last someone has put it in simple terms we can all understand.
😁😁😁😁yep. pure babblings
Yes, it's a lot of word soup. It is rather hard to express an incoherent idea.
Don't ever call him Chris. And that was not a pun.
I fully agree that this guy is "lacking" in the sense of intellect. But it actually was a pun, about breaking bread, when used in the context of religion.
Lol when he said Chris, he absolutely ate a bird. Lol
Came here looking for both of these
The first guy didn't really ask a question. He basically said, in a long winded way, that it is better to live in a democracy rather than a theocracy.
None of them did
Indeed. Very profound 🙄
the last guy, talking to Hitchens from 4.17 should be a character on the Office. It takes great skill to put words together that sound like they are saying something deep and meaningful, but are utter nonsense, devoid of any meaning at all (Chopra is the expert here).
Maybe it was Jordan Peterson? lol
It is called being a sophist.
I LOVE that Dawkins really tries to be polite and offer some kind of cogent response to an incoherent question, but Hitchens just says "You're talking bollocks. Next."
INTP vs INTJ
@@feliscorax "You're talking bollocks. Next."
@@JackieChandler69 It might be, but I’m not so sure. The Myers-Briggs personality schema could be correct or else it may just be yet another pseudoscience. Still, I find it interesting that Richard Dawkins conforms rather well to the characteristics of the INTP, especially in terms of trying to understand issues from all angles and very patiently (and diplomatically) explaining and debating the ideas, whereas Hitchens conforms rather strongly to the INTJ schema in that he has very little patience for nonsense and possesses both the drive and the self-assurance to let it be known. Unless you’ve got a better explanation, I’ll hedge my bets and say there could still be something in it, but I’m prepared to be wrong. Are you?
@@feliscorax”studies show that at least 50% of people test into a different personality type, even if the retest period is very short.”
@@brennenconlee437 Yes, yes. They’re subjective, which any psychologist will tell you when you take the test, because the subject has to confirm whether or not the profile matches their own self-perception. Here’s the thing, though: just because it isn’t scientifically reproducible doesn’t mean it isn’t valid. We are, after all, dealing with people and people don’t fit neatly into fixed categories or scientific heuristics.
The second guy, he fucked up already by saying Chris.
the first guy was on hitchen's side. Right? I have mild autism can you explain the first guy please?
the first guy was on hitchen's side. Right? I have mild autism can you explain the first guy please?
+john oliver what is mild autism? Either one is autistic or not. Do you mean you have Asperger's /HFA?
Ioulia 07 different levels of autism are definitely there. I know of one example personally of an autistic child that still has no idea he is, because he is fully capable of functioning adequately in society.
(This might say something about the average american's math skills though)
Jaden CM Thats called, High-Functioning autism or aspergers. But that category is not being used anymore in psychology for some reason.
"Yes thank you for taking my question, let me just quote a thesaurus verbatim."
"I move we take that as a statement ". 😂
Next
Had to take the time to transcribe the guy from 4:17
A thought I had, based on an idea that the materialisation from pre-existence into existence then concluding with post-existence, one might assert a lack of definitive strength regarding post-existence, as the absolute final end. I just want to touch on the notion of what appears to be emerging from non-existence, and I understand that there signs saying that things have happened and I’m really not in either one of your corners, I feel. But I feel like this is substantial for me [DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION???] yeah the question is I’m trying to generate some feedback because I think maybe we could humble down and say hey, you know, we are somewhat in the unknown, based on linguistics, and we are somehow trapped in this sense of the unknown, I mean, you may feel, I know you are science-based, I know you are somewhat religious-based, but this merging out of non-existence, into existence, and then back into post-existence, do you see a pattern there, a 0-1-0 pattern [DO YOU WANT DINESH OR CHRISTOPHER TO ANSWER THAT???] and then row 4 would indicate if you feel that that pattern, I would suggest a “1”, now just tell me what’s your general idea that is your sense of that, not necessarily taking it to probatum.
Hahahahahahahaahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahah.
mrespanfanx Next.
it must have been joke
I do get his point now, taking it slowly, but for him to think that just because we didn't exist, and now we do, and soon we won't means that we have to exist again after we won't is quite silly. If I take water and freeze it into ice, and then let it melt, does that mean that the water will be ice again next? Maybe it will be steam next.
Number of times he stuffs the word "existence" into that speech: over 9,000
the last question is impossible to understand .
GunsGiftsGalleries because it is. the guy is taking gibberish due to too much infusion oh Deepal chopra garbage or outright trolling by trying to. bait CH into parsing gibberish in public.
No, it's really not that hard to understand what he's saying.
He's commenting on the position that atheists hold in that we started as non-existent beings, we then came into existence as beings of life, and that we would then go back to being non-existent beings when we die, hence his statement of the "0-1-0 pattern." He then proposes to Hitchens that if we were to follow this pattern, it would make sense that we would come back into existence again and support the religious notion that we would enter into the afterlife, at least, that's what I anticipate his argument would be.
In fact, none of these questions could really be called incoherent. They are phrased in complex ways, but certainly not incoherent. I'm disappointed by the listening skills of the atheist community.
Well, half the things that religious people say only makes any sense if they're religious.
UndertakerU2ber no... the next 1 is NOT comming from the last 1. it is a new integer entirely. So no. he just took a really simple idea and made it complex for no reason.
UndertakerU2ber lmao no. The thing is Christopher Hitchens could have asked those questions 10x better, shorter and well said and so can any other person that knows how to ask a good question. These people were just awful at explaining themselves
I was at this debate in Oxford; Hitchens really is an impressive intellectual force.
"I'll take that as a statement"....Lol, I'll use that more often
It's 2:00am in bangladesh and i am watching all these great videos of dawkins and hitchens... They r like feasts for ur brain... And i dont think i will ever be full....
Carbohydrates help.
Don't forget to delete your history if your family doesn't share the same ideas.
I'm an ex-muslim and I have to be careful.
same
Then you get deceived by convoluted speech, big words and dim wit crowd applause.
I don't.
Everybody is not going to Heaven.
@john bloggs speak for yourself.
Word salad olympics
5:00 I wonder if that's the first time someone ever tried to blend Boolean Logic and the Cosmological Argument. It's most cringeworthy
Caterpillar, oh, yes, they do, even very smart people, maybe especially smart people, after all, if they can CONCEIVE that we might all be manifestations in some giant alien computer, then it is PROBABLE that we must be, hence, computer, so 0 - 1 - 0 and eternal life in the cosmic cloud of data forever and ever, R'amen, and that final "1" = all their memories somehow recovered from their dead lives and made permanent...oh, it burns! It BURNS! Like their consciousness can be recovered after their deaths and would automatically somehow be in binary code! Well, if we WERE a big computer program, then maybe, but otherwise? Sheesh.
Caterpillar pretty bad
Dawkins' conclusion at 4:15 is the highlight of this compilation! One of the most direct, honest public intellectuals I have ever encountered.
that last guy just wanted to get up in front of people and show off all the words he looked up in a thesaurus during the speech
next....neeeext!..hahaha man i miss this guy
I usually just skip to the part where he says next and rewind.
How does one spell out "That last guy got humiliated" in binary code?
+Krizzly 01010100 01101000 01100001 01110100 00100000 01101100 01100001 01110011 01110100 00100000 01100111 01110101 01111001 00100000 01100111 01101111 01110100 00100000 01101000 01110101 01101101 01101001 01101100 01101001 01100001 01110100 01100101 01100100
5:10 Hitchen's face....
'Nexxxxxt...'
Boss level: Infinity
2:41
"My question is..."
*goes on to make a statement and never asks a question*
4:58 - 5:03 Hitch in a drawn out sigh. Probably thinking "Well shit, there goes my faith in humanity".
The last guy sounded like Jordan Peterson. Both the sound of his voice and the pseudo intellectual word salad coming out of his mouth.
That last one is a blatant bet/troll.
"Science is looking for some *kind* of understanding or explanation of the world." It's like a billion eyes rolled at that moment and then disappeared from existence.
"materialisation from pre-existence, into existence, then concluding with post-existence, one might assert a lack of definitive strength regarding post-existence as the absolute final end"
it seems to be the American way to use ten words when one will do! the dude should have just admitted he believes there must be life after death.
"materialization from pre-existence, into existence" is apparently a creator - guess who...
"I think we should take that as a statement" what a polite way to say "gibberish"! I'll use it!
Pissed myself laughing at 4:45. Hitchens's body language = full-body face-palm/sigh.
Can someone please tell me what that tall red flag thing is that some guy carries around the sideline during a game of American football?
I wonder how many of those religious loons later ended up on UA-cam, saying: "Hey, that was me! I was debating Hitchens and Dawkins! And I totally destroyed them!" Seriously, I do not envy Dawkins his job. It's like talking to the village idiot, telling him on a daily basis, "please, wear your pants!", and every day you get the same response.
***** Hodor?
I think the last guy was trolling?
All he asked was do you see a "0,1,0" pattern in our "pre-existence, existence and post-existence" and what they're thoughts are on that.
That has to be a troll question because it's just an empty question really.
Yes, I see a pattern. No, I don't have any thoughts on it.
Done.
M3Lucky He sounds like he has schizophrenia. Schizophrenics tend to speak in word salad, or logically incoherent sentences that make perfect sense to them, but not to anyone else. The fact that he's making up words like "post-existence" also fits pretty well.
M3Lucky Maybe just a computer geek that is trying to grasp the universe in binary code. Linear thinkers generally can't grasp concepts that are not in the language they understand. Too bad English was not that language.
Lolol I think he's saying we're born and then we die what's up with that plus he's trying to sound smart and maybe he's nervous
Best one
M3Lucky Yikes! There's a spider on my screen!
+M3Lucky What the fuck is ''post-existence''? Death?
"You are saying, let's use belligerent words, let's use cold capricious words, and say this is the way it has to be written."
Wow. I could break bread with this guy. Forgive the pun.
"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt."
If one and one is two and 3 and 1 is machine oil, how many pancakes does it take to cover a dog house.
10
Depends. How many dogs do you have? And what was the shade of the moonlight 3 nights ago?
When i read the title of this video, I thought; "finally, i have found my niche"
What type of person named David Whitton calls in from in hong kong?
Miguel Favela Just because you've never left your hometown doesn't mean others don't travel. Hong Kong is a very international place.
Perfect (stupid) question, given the topic of this video
Miguel Favela obviously somebody that lives in Hong Kong..... named David.
You DO realize that there is no physical reason why a person of a different race or cultural background can't live somewhere other than their home-land, right?
Miguel Favela
David Whitton mentioned an important subject and Dawkins couldn't even understand it, less answer him something of value.
Whitton asked him about those experiences in life which are ineffable, that go beyond literal concepts and ideas... In doing so he pointed out that is useless to grasp life through them.
Life is not about that, life is experiencing the moment.. and my opinion is that we need both science and religion to be able do that.
Through the art of science we can test and endlessly question our own understanding of the universe. In looking those explanations is easier to wonder about the perfection of nature and to feel part of it.
I agree with Dawkins, dogmatism and religious institutions most die. But dismissing religion because of it's theory is to misunderstand it.
Religion is a practice, and all of them promote meditation, kindness and to love ourselves and one another. Jesus didn't talk to "god". That's only a metaphor of meditation, and the experience of stepping out of himself.
As humans we need to construct our own understanding of the universe, let's practice science and religion and stop wasting time convincing each other of personal ideas and belief systems, trying to prove the other one wrong.
Why still focusing in the superficial stereotypical stories?
multifacetica23 religion supports kindness and love? When did that start? Let's see, lovingly condemning homosexuals, kindly keeping women down as second class beings or chat tell, smiling as they torture or kill those who do not agree with them, and so on. I paraphrase Hitchens. Just because religion is benign where you live today does not mean you can forget how it acted when religion was strong.
The first clip is not an incoherent question. The man is basically stating that he believes discussing the substantiating evidence for religion is inconsequential for him, as he's witnessed first hand the "curse of a religious state". That is to say, regardless of any substantive evidence for religion, it's no way to rule a society.
Christopher Hitchens understood and agreed with this point, which is why he said "Good for you".
"Existence, Post-existence, blah blah...1, 0, 1, 0 pattern, yadda yadda... I would suggest a 1"
What the fuck man, just say you believe in reincarnation and ask for Hitchens' take on it. I hope he was just trolling.
2:30 What’s so complicated about this? He’s simply saying that the deep-seated parts of our minds that crave something to fill the void, aren’t best served by only facts.
It’s a useful remark, in that, although religious books may have originally been science/history textbooks, they have survived the 20th century, not as books of facts, but as a tool to cultivate community, transcendental experience, and consolation in times of grief.
As secular anti-theists, we will eventually have to address these issues to remove religion entirely.
We need to prove to folks that “no after-life” isn’t just true, but preferable.
I think neuroscience will explain some of these internal experiences the man was rambling on about...
This concern for "experience" over thoughts and ideas has some overlap with the goals of mindfulness practice. So the caller wasn't completely misguided, just not good at expressing his motivation for raising the subject. He's really just talking about human psychology or psychopathology.
Neurologists are fond of saying "the neurons that fire together, wire together" as a way of describing how short term cognitive patterns gradually become habitual through repetition.
In the modem world, we're obliged to do a lot of abstract or symbolic thinking, and of course this is because doing so serves us very well, in a functional sense, for solving complex social and technical problems. Even something as simple as balancing a household budget is a far more complex symbolic exercise than our ancestors of a thousand years ago had to deal with. Our minds through repeated practice end up dedicating a lot of neurological capacity to this way of thinking: what the caller clumsily called "thoughts and ideas."
The downside is that we dedicate less cognitive bandwidth for direct experience of our senses. We habitually narrate the world to ourselves as we experience it, and this chatter, this stream of symbols and ideas about ideas about things, somewhat gets in the way of our ability to be nourished by the experience. We're not quite living in the moment, and that feels unsatisfying.
It SHOULD feel unsatisfying, because that experience of the moment is the only contact we have with present reality. Hence mindfulness practice, to retrain the mind's neurology to enjoy being present to immediately experience, instead of flitting away on a stream of ideas.
I think the caller was perhaps trying to get at this insight. Dawkins, as an evolutionary biologist, might have something interesting to say about it. But it's not a philosophical insight or a religious one, and the caller seems to suppose that it is somehow. Religion and philosophy offer their own streams of thoughts and ideas, which can be examined and discussed all we like. But that is not being in the present moment of experience, on the contrary.
You know your position is indefensible when you cloak it in verbiage.
The last guy was totally off his rocker. Love the look Hitchens has as he waits for him to stop babbling.
at 2:30 what is that show? its written aapki, in hindi, means "yours" at the back, why?
the problem here is that the lack of evidence for God makes God a very abstract concept. And the arguments for God are sometimes so abstract that people have trouble putting them into words, creating this soup of gibberish that comes out of believers' mouths. What is funny is that if atheists made arguments like this, they'd be the first to say atheists are nuts.
5:10 When the weird kid in class is talking to you and you have no idea what they're saying...
LOL ... philosophical concepts are hard enough to put into words, let alone trying to make the ideas sound coherent when you're on the spot in front of an audience and sharp minds like Hitch and RD.
write down some notes and you got yourself a coherent sentence.
Like someone else said - behind their pretending to be a walking thesaurus is complete gibberish.
NEXT!
Christopher Hitchens. A man of substance, intellect and learning with an unsurpassable wit the likes of which will never be seen again in our age. Honest and open, a staunch fighter against the tyrannical megalomania of every religion. An advocate for free speech with warnings completely overlooked by the world which is all the poorer for it. A modern day prophet with a penchant for truth, a poet a genius and a Gentleman for all time. Rest in peace Sir, we salute you.
Fine. But I doubt the piece.
@@MR-intel Indeed sir, five years ago I wrote this message and have only just noticed this schoolboy error thanks to you...is it too late to blame auto correct? Probably tee hee.
Thank you kind sir I will correct it immediately 👍
Who paid for the Hong Kong call?!?!...🤯🤪😜😫🤢🤬🤢😱
Holy shit that last guy.
My head hurts trying to listen to what they're trying to say. It sounds like they're trying to be clever without really knowing what being clever is
This is quite embarrassing
What do you think in regards to religion that people should be mindful of when talking about other subjects or better yet other people when trying to postulate a something that might not be exactly what you would think? Or what OTHERS may think if that's the case?
I have to agree with Hitchens and Dawkins. I can't make heads or tails of WTF these people were getting at.
Hi! I'm Polish and I don't understand what these guys are saying. Anyone have subtitles for this video?:)
There were barely any questions in there...I think that would be why they were so incoherent, they were just people rambling trying to get people to hear them speak.
the first guy was on hitchen's side. Right? I have mild autism can you explain the first guy please? sorry
My Granny always said,
"SonnyBoy, the answers you're gonna get outa life are only gonna be as good as the questions you're gonna ask."
I think the first speaker was perfectly fine: We don't need to discuss islam to realize that theocracy is bad for you. You can judge theocracy by its results.
The third speaker I think I understood too: religion offers people an experience, which can be true in another sense than the objective sense. It's hermeneutics.
Two and four I don't get at all.
'I'm going to try and use word salad to present my point but when it comes to asking a question, I'm actually unable to link words together.'
...or form a syllogism.
Pure gibberish most of these questions
"Incoherent"?
Let's use the more simpler term,
"Truly STUPID"
LOL
lets not forget, ;god was born in the us;.. the only mystery is , ;which state;.
Some folks just do not know how to ask a question, they think their feeling is a question.
I agree with all those questions. If the conceptuality of non-existence can be experienced from the standpoint of the phenomenon per se, then the question of its perception naturally emerges as a thought process that calls for an answer in connection with the continuum from pre-existence to post-existence as it forms, so to speak, a constant pendulum of dialectical schemata which should and can be addressed on the basis of ontological arguments concerning the very nature of the question
I like apples
"Your question is still gibberish...I'm sorry...next..next.."
Hahahahahaaaa...Brilliant, smug Chris!! Miss him.
I don't think the first one was a bad question or incoherent. It sounded garbled because one, he was clearly nervous and two, he was quite passionate about the topic. If he said why are we debating religious rule when all you have to do is live in Iran to see what a horrible idea that is, you'd all be cheering and calling for him to be in a different compilation.
why is the first statement included?
Haha why was it that so many felt the need to fumble out a load of big words when speaking to Hitch? The exact definition of "lots to say about nothing".
@nextblain I don't know why but the show is 'Have Your Say' with Mike Wooldridge on the BBC World Service.
5:17 Is that Frank Turek?
**spouts utter gibberish for ten minutes** **oh shit, this was supposed to be a question** "so... s-so, how do you feel about that?"
Genius.
Sophism on display!
Experience a massive dose of magic mushrooms in silent darkness;)
I've asked questions like these before. I think these gentleman all genuinely wanted some input from the Hitchens and Dawkin on their own ideas, but just didn't think about it themselves enough. Sometimes the idea has to develop, and then you ask for thoughts, and perhaps not necessarily an answer to the question.
OK I got the last 2 questions without too much trouble, second last guy was saying that "Isn't it possible that our words and feelings aren't broad or deep enough to explain, describe or to even understand what it means to exist". meaning, we're not equipped to fully understand why we're alive and what it means to be alive, and never will be.
And the last guy was saying, ok we went from nothing, to existing, and will eventually end up at not existing again. So what's the point in existing. ?
+Antony Quigley: I pretty much agree with your interpretation, but his question was not what the point is. His question was if he saw a pattern in it. That pattern is called generations and although Hitch isn't available to correct me, I dare say he was familiar with the concept. The question of what the point is, is one that Hitch would've been able to respond to and it's certainly not an uninteresting one. The "linguistics" certainly wasn't.
*****
agreed. They're interesting questions. It's plainly obvious at the moment that we simply can't understand, never will be able to understand how the universe exists. It didn't get created by a being thats not part of space and time and is omnipotent. As the bible clearly states "god mad man in he's own image" so god is "Something" has he has an image, like a man. So that whole "God is outside the realm of being and space and time". Thats just a bollox argument. He is something if they believe in him. Otherwise how could we be made in "Hes Image". Meaning he looks like man. SO the argument "Something can't come from nothing, therefor tnhe universe had to have a creator". Thne the same is true for the creator, as the creator is clearly stated as being man like, then he couldn't have come from nothing, as he is something also. We are just not intelligent enough to understand the concept of no beginning. Just everlasting non begiing, non end. Nothing in nature that we know demonstrates this.
So. The only think a Christian has ever said that makes sense is "The universe can't be infinite, as if it was, we could have never reached today. Due to the fact that there would have already have had t have been an infinite amount of time and events that have happened before we arrived at this day, which is impossible. Other wise what is today, Infinity and 1? And then there'd have to be an infinite amount of events to happen after today. If there has already been an infinite amount of days before today, we can never reach today, as we can't reach infinity. Do you get me?
It's an impossible question to answer.
Also, If the universe is infinte, the sun wouldn't be burning still. As it would have had to have been burning for infinity already.
"I move we take that as a statement" - a rather generous estimate.
@Serpico261 Thanks for your comment. Glad you enjoyed it. The most incoherent one was the last one. I really didn't have a clue what he was talking about.
LOL that last guy was just being funny. That was absolutely hilarious!!!
+Jon Greene It becomes unfunny when you realize it's not.
An uneasy fair enough...but another point is the unnecessary time he wasted. IF in fact he was just kidding around, I still find it rather annoying.
Empty vessels make the most noise.
Is the last guy trying to make the argument we live in a simulation?
Jeeez! Which galaxy was that first guy from??
They really do like the sound of their own voices.
they should have someone standing by with a big net at these debates.
Daniel Dennett's word "deepity" comes to mind.
"I wish to take that as a statement. I move we take that as a statement. Next."
I will miss Hitchens so much. Brilliant.
More examples of empty vessels making the most noise
I don't get why people find it so difficult to ask a question.
"I am a scientist". That is not something a real scientist would say. He would say "I am an biochemist, I am a cosmologist, I am a theoretical particle physicist ..."
Are you serious? Of course it is acceptable to say "I am a scientist" without expanding the title. Just as I describe myself as an engineer. If it is appropriate I will expand that to electronic engineer at most. I, and most folks I know, don't really need further information unless it is specific to the conversation. Though I have noticed most "religious" types feel the need to expound they're cult affiliation in order to demonstrate they're superior belief system.
+Roedy Green LOL. So are you saying he was not a real scientist then. You'd better contact Oxford University then. They employed him as Professor of Zoology for decades.
And so was the one with Richard Dawkins on the phone around 2:40. He was implying that possibly there was a time where we couldn't explain anything and that learning religion let's say Christianity for example, he's implying that possibly people "worshiped" it in the sense of just taking from it what they will and applying to real life. For example, they learn to pray yet they apply that to their lives by thinking about the problem and not giving up hope because hope in some cases can be survival. I don't personally agree with it but at least I understand it...
Mythological truth is the continuity of formless timelessness. The presupposition is the presupposition to your own knowledge. Therefore, the most real truth differentiates into exponential power. - Wisdom of Peterson
Lol that guy on hardball plaza sounds like google translator translating an entire passage of Mandarin Chinese into English.
He didn't say it was a requirement, merely that maybe seeing things from a different perspective would change things. If a mere bit of chemicals can change the entire fabric of your personal reality, even if it is only temporarily, what does that say for how you 'naturally' see reality?
His editor would say that kitchens with so far above him it was hard to even relate
I'd give a hundred bucks to know what Hitchens was thinking when the King's College guy was thrashing about verbally.