1. Comment #57167 by Algebratheist on July 18, 2007 at 12:47 pm

Wow, an hour and 15 min. from Mr. Hitchens. As was said of the recent Sam Harris video; these guys say the same things over and over but i love it and i can't get enough of it!!

Other Comments by Algebratheist

2. Comment #57173 by USA_Limey on July 18, 2007 at 1:03 pm

Can't watch this at work but looking forward to it when I get home.

Can't wait for:

"Religion is from the infancy of our species"

and

"Our prefontal lobes are too small and our adrenalin glands too big"

and other favourites.


Shit, I really am a groupie aren't I?

Other Comments by USA_Limey

3. Comment #57179 by fungaljungle on July 18, 2007 at 1:18 pm

I hear you USA_Limey, as soon as i get home!!

I'm looking forward to the "...excremental infancy of our species."

Other Comments by fungaljungle

4. Comment #57180 by FoundLink on July 18, 2007 at 1:19 pm

Does anyone know of a link that does not use Real Player? Windows media or Quicktime would be better.


Other Comments by FoundLink

5. Comment #57182 by Crono454 on July 18, 2007 at 1:32 pm

FOUNDLINK: Does anyone know of a link that does not use Real Player? Windows media or Quicktime would be better.
Just use Real Alternative instead of downloading Real Player
http://www.free-codecs.com/download/Real_Alternative.htm

Other Comments by Crono454

6. Comment #57184 by Spinoza on July 18, 2007 at 1:36 pm

I love love love how he always mentions "me". Hehe.

Along with my other heroes: Einstein and Russell.

Just FYI (any of ya who don't know), Spinoza was THE MAN. He always denied being an "atheist" though, but he had his own definition of the word "God" that certainly precluded the existence of any personal God...

And his political work (The Treatise Theologico-Politicus) is just brilliant.

Not to mention the book Einstein called the greatest ever written, The Ethics.

Other Comments by Spinoza

7. Comment #57185 by VinceMcD on July 18, 2007 at 1:41 pm

Anyone catch the enema comment? I think they censored it. Did anyone understand what Hitch said "give him an enema.....??????"

Other Comments by VinceMcD

8. Comment #57186 by maton100 on July 18, 2007 at 1:51 pm

Check out Peter Berkowitz (the reporter who recently reprimanded Hitchens and "new atheists") getting owned at the Curmudgeon.

http://thestubborncurmudgeon.blogspot.com

Other Comments by maton100

9. Comment #57187 by USA_Limey on July 18, 2007 at 1:54 pm

Regarding the enema,

haven't seen the vid yet: but was this about Falwell?

If so, he said when Falwell died if you gave him an enema you could bury him in a match box. He said this in a number of interviews after his death, (which could not have come at a better time for Hitch and his book sales!)

Other Comments by USA_Limey

10. Comment #57190 by bayareadude on July 18, 2007 at 2:02 pm

Hitchens is amazing in his ability to deliver an insult that would go over the heads of most of its targets.

Can't wait to see him in September at the Atheist Alliance International Annual Conference (where Dawkins, Harris, and Dennett will also be in attendance)! atheistalliance.org

Other Comments by bayareadude

11. Comment #57196 by Ron on July 18, 2007 at 2:14 pm

This is actually one of the better performances I've seen Hitchens give. It was supposed to be a debate, but apparently the opponent canceled the day of. So you get 1:15 of Hitchens without having to sit through (usually) ridiculous, unengaging counterarguments. Hitchens seems in very good spirits(eh, hem--no pun intended) and is jovial throughout.

Other Comments by Ron

12. Comment #57199 by IanRobinson on July 18, 2007 at 2:15 pm

This lecture and Q&A is very good indeed. Measured, funny and insightful. 75 minutes well spent.

Other Comments by IanRobinson

13. Comment #57209 by VinceMcD on July 18, 2007 at 2:44 pm

Thanks USA I couldn't hear the words; cursed real player!

Other Comments by VinceMcD

14. Comment #57210 by blasphemer on July 18, 2007 at 2:48 pm

I enjoyed this, as usual, but hoped for more in response to the question about what social outlet could replace church-going were religion to lose popularity.

Even though many church-goers may not adhere to the strict tenets of their religion, I think many "belong" to a church for the social interaction it provides. It seems today that their are fewer and fewer social outlets for a lot of people and many may feel disenfranchised from the community. Churches provide a welcoming place for such individuals and this might be the appeal for many people to belong to such institutions.

If their were more secular organizations that provided the same social experiences people might feel more comfortable about leaving their religion.

I listen regularly to "The Atheist Experience" and "Non-prophets" podcasts put out by members of The Atheist Community of Austin. This organization does provide this type of social support through many local activities and events. I wish I lived closer to Austin so that I could partake in them myself.

Other Comments by blasphemer

15. Comment #57214 by AdrianB on July 18, 2007 at 2:59 pm

Just wanted to add that this is well worth watching. It is the best talk that I have heard Christopher Hitchens give, and possibly the best of any of the "unholy trinity".

Blashphemer, I'm not sure if there is a satisfactory answer to your question. There is a forum thread on the subject. In the UK we have pubs.

Other Comments by AdrianB

16. Comment #57215 by phil rimmer on July 18, 2007 at 3:04 pm

In a few years time Hitch will be doing this stuff in comedy clubs up and down the land. I can just see him on a dark stage picked out by a single spotlight. He's perched on a bar stool, with long pauses in his delivery as he takes a drag from his cigarette, glass at the ready on the little table beside him.

I think he'd love it.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

17. Comment #57217 by ssss on July 18, 2007 at 3:15 pm

So funny!
I hope I make it to the DC conference. The student fee was too much for me, but if someone can't make it they can donate their registration. Would love to go.

Other Comments by ssss

18. Comment #57218 by ecl6nb on July 18, 2007 at 3:16 pm

I enjoyed reading God Is Not Great for the first 4/5 of the book. As a fellow anti-theist its great to hear someone articulate the arguments so clearly. Though I felt a slight unease that attacking Judeo-Christian tradition is a bit like shooting fish in a barrel and his style is sometimes unnecessarily abrasive I was quite willing to go along with it. Until, that is, he started 'having a go' at Buddhism - a 'religion' I admire.

Though it has undoubtedly acquired many supernatural elements in the past 2,500 years I think that unlike other religions it is not essential to believe in them in order to see the value of its core tenets. The central beliefs of Buddhism (Four Noble Truths, Three Signs of Being, etc) and subject to rational investigation. No Buddhist is required to believe them because the Buddha says they should but rather are invited to reflect on them and consider that they may be true. Buddhism is a rational, experiential belief system. CH's comments on Buddhism in his book reveal that he knows little about Buddhist philosophy. I realise that I may sound just like a Christian/Muslim/Jew complaining that he really doesn't understand 'my' religion but I think there is a difference. He spends considerable time de-constructing the big three religions and demonstrates that he does at least know what they teach even if he doesn't think its true. His dismissal of Buddhism however is cursory and badly researched. I would be interested in reading a serious well-researched critique of Buddhism from a humanist/rationalist perpective.

While there can be no doubt that individual Buddhists have and continue to do 'bad things' and sometimes in the name of their religion, it is a mistake to equate it with Christianity or Islam. The scale and frequency of such incidents is so comparatively small that they stand out precisely because they are the exception in the history of Buddhism.

In this talk he mentions as an aside the fact that the Burmese military junta is made up of Buddhists. So what? People can be hypocrites whether they are religious or not. These 'asides' don't consitute an argument but merely attempt to tarnish by association.

Other Comments by ecl6nb

19. Comment #57230 by Salvatore on July 18, 2007 at 3:56 pm

This time Hitchens doesn't need to debate his brother.

This time he debates himself!

Other Comments by Salvatore

20. Comment #57236 by sbooder on July 18, 2007 at 4:05 pm

Masterful!

Other Comments by sbooder

21. Comment #57237 by tiff_seattle on July 18, 2007 at 4:09 pm

I was there for this one. It was too bad though that no one showed up to debate him. And in other news, I was amused last night when I picked up the wifi signal from the Discovery Institute while waiting for the bus.

Other Comments by tiff_seattle

22. Comment #57250 by Yorker on July 18, 2007 at 4:42 pm

16. Comment #57215 by phil rimmer

"In a few years time Hitch will be doing this stuff in comedy clubs up and down the land. I can just see him on a dark stage picked out by a single spotlight."

I think he's already doing it! At least that's what the casual visitor might think by reading some of the comments here. People are starting to treat him like a pop star, it amazes me that even clever persons are suckers for "celebitis", they can't wait to hear their idol utter the same old phrases they've heard many times before. Kinda like the "I didn't do it" phrase from the Simpsons episode when Bart became famous!

Other Comments by Yorker

23. Comment #57254 by bwana ndege on July 18, 2007 at 5:03 pm

I would be interested in reading a serious well-researched critique of Buddhism from a humanist/rationalist perpective.

A pseudo-religion for people with too much time on their hands. Will that do?

Other Comments by bwana ndege

24. Comment #57259 by UncleJJ on July 18, 2007 at 5:16 pm

Lots of fresh material in this. It was better than when he debates an "opponent". I liked his introduction and the questions (except one) were worthwhile. Probably his best talk so far

Other Comments by UncleJJ

25. Comment #57279 by Yorker on July 18, 2007 at 6:15 pm

Now that I've watched, I think it was probably the best Hitch show so far. The audio/video police who censored the the item annoyed me through incompetence and idiocy. First a text warning of bad language is shown but they go ahead and attempt to cut the sex and swear words anyway, (perhaps they think we can't read). However, they made a nonsense of the whole plan by allowing a "fuck" to go unedited, and how many children did they think would watch this anyhow?

Other Comments by Yorker

26. Comment #57280 by tieInterceptor on July 18, 2007 at 6:25 pm

AMAZING, it got me awake until 2:23am !

better than the 4 musketeers, the four horseman of the counter-apocalypse!

genius.


Hitchens rocks, no doubt about that.

Other Comments by tieInterceptor

27. Comment #57281 by Yorker on July 18, 2007 at 6:27 pm

7. Comment #57185 by VinceMcD

Normally the line is: "If you gave him an enema you could bury him in a matchbox". But this time he said "shoe box", actually in spite of the crappy editing I think he said "fucking shoe box" on this occasion.

Other Comments by Yorker

28. Comment #57291 by roach on July 18, 2007 at 7:26 pm

I have to agree with tieInterceptor.

The four horsemen of the anti-apocalypse sounds so badass.

Other Comments by roach

29. Comment #57295 by ross on July 18, 2007 at 7:50 pm

Hitchens states: "The alleged Nazarene, in whose existence I (also) do not believe".

Nice to hear a prominent speaker voice this. As much as I admire and appreciate RD, I get a bit frustrated when he speculates that JC probably existed, when there is virtually no evidence of it. And many reasons to believe that he didn't.

Talk about the ultimate in clay feet. If it were brought to the fore, this point that no one did in fact "die for you on the cross", Christianity as a fact-based faith would certainly be on the run. Of course, most wouldn't listen, but, it's an awfully strong argument against their position. I wonder why this side of the argument is often ignored - except by Hitchens (and Robert M. Price, and Richard Carrier, and Earl Doherty, and Brian Flemming, and...)

Other Comments by ross

30. Comment #57297 by toomanytribbles on July 18, 2007 at 7:56 pm

can i repeat crono454's request for an alternative link?

Other Comments by toomanytribbles

31. Comment #57299 by HappyPrimate on July 18, 2007 at 8:25 pm

Very delightful and enjoyable talk by Mr. Hitchens. Some new stuff too.

Other Comments by HappyPrimate

32. Comment #57303 by discipline on July 18, 2007 at 8:43 pm

One of the most entertaining videos posted on this site. The way he combines deep erudition and ribald sex jokes is a wonder to behold. A brilliant compliment to Dawkins, Harris, et al.

Other Comments by discipline

33. Comment #57311 by JimmyT on July 18, 2007 at 9:38 pm

Hopefully an mp3 of this will be available soon so that I can add it to the existing 5 hours of Hitch, 3 hours of Harris, 3 hours of RD, 2 hours of Steve Jones and 1 hour of PZ already on my personal mp3 player.

I think I need to get out more...

Other Comments by JimmyT

34. Comment #57312 by Spinoza on July 18, 2007 at 9:39 pm

Jimmy, where's your Dennett and Russell? (they have audio-books available you know... and not just on Atheism... on some kick-ass philosophy too! lol.)

Oh, and A.C. Grayling... he's great too.

Other Comments by Spinoza

35. Comment #57321 by kizumoto on July 18, 2007 at 11:39 pm

If anyone has any way to communicate with Christopher Hitchens, please tell him to drop the story about the Hirohito's son, the Japanese Crown Prince, now Emperor. it will harm his credibility.
He states that Hitohito's son went to Oxford in the thirties.
However he was born in 1933 and did not go to Oxford. In fact I just checked his bio and discovered he never studied in the UK.
Hirohito's grandson, the present Crown Prince studied at Oxford beginning in 1983: river transport on the River Thames. This was long after the Imperial family had officially denied the notion that the Emporer is a God, so such a conversation could not have taken place regarding treatment of Hirohito's grandson.
In short, the story about the Crown Prince at Oxford is not true.

Other Comments by kizumoto

36. Comment #57331 by Zzyx1170 on July 19, 2007 at 12:47 am

I found an mp3 file of this on rapidshare.

http://rapidshare.com/files/43753357/ChristopherHitchenV.mp3

Other Comments by Zzyx1170

37. Comment #57351 by Logicel on July 19, 2007 at 2:29 am

I appreciated his delineating why the global response to the violence triggered by the Danish cartoons was shamefully wrong. And I adored his equating Liberation Theology with callow piffle, and saying that Liberation Theology, a contradiction in terms, bores him.

Other faves: pinched and flabby faces of the faithful and the ghastly tubby form of Falwell.

Other Comments by Logicel

38. Comment #57355 by Graeme on July 19, 2007 at 2:55 am

My favourite bit was the Mark Twain reference in answer to the old..
"we need religion for our moral guidance" assertion...
I think it went something like...

"So
How does Huck Finn know not to betray his friend Jim to the people hunting for him?
The law is against him...
The church is against him...
He thinks that if he refuses to give up his slave friend he will go straight to hell...

but he still does the right thing...
Its inate in us to do the right thing...
We know the right thing to do...
Without needing to be told what to do by some celestial dictatorship.."

thats the first time I've heard that example... and I think I'll use "Huckleberry Finns Dilemma" the next time I hear the "Morals" arguement.
I cant wait to find out if Jim gets betrayed !!!
(or if they're going straight to hell!!..)

Any of you religious types out there going to answer this one??



Other Comments by Graeme

39. Comment #57359 by CJ22 on July 19, 2007 at 2:59 am

I'm holding out for another 'sheep-faced loon' comment myself.

Other Comments by CJ22

40. Comment #57376 by The Smart Patrol on July 19, 2007 at 4:00 am

CJ22... I really, really want an enlarged picture of that blasphemous fox in your avatar. Rar.

Other Comments by The Smart Patrol

41. Comment #57379 by Ole on July 19, 2007 at 4:15 am

Hitch, som trivia in regards to the cartoons:

It was not a newspaper from Copenhagen, but the Jyllands-Posten ("The Jutland Post"). Copehangen is not on Jutland, it's on Sealand.

More about the cartoons here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy

Ole

Other Comments by Ole

42. Comment #57381 by DNAtheist on July 19, 2007 at 4:33 am

Smart Patrol:

Here is that enlarged photo that you wanted.

Other Comments by DNAtheist

43. Comment #57384 by The Smart Patrol on July 19, 2007 at 4:49 am

Nice one DNAtheist. I'll... put it to good use.

Other Comments by The Smart Patrol

44. Comment #57391 by USA_Limey on July 19, 2007 at 6:08 am

DNAtheist...

Thanks mate, now you have totally runied my concentration for the rest of the day at work.

Curse you god, for making me a male....

Other Comments by USA_Limey

45. Comment #57405 by 3legcat on July 19, 2007 at 7:56 am

"how does huck finn know?"

again, (i am perhaps repeating this too often) but the answer from theists isn't because god says so and we wouldn't know otherwise, but that god created huck (and everyone) with a moral compass, as well as creating rightness and wrongness themselves. that morality is meaningless unless it is infinite, eternal and beyond human choice. all we can do is interpret our god given moral compass. this is the real argument, not that before scripture people were morally lost.

this is where the strong theist argument comes from, the strong intuition we all feel that justice transcends any one individual or even any collective agreement of a society. for them it is not enough to say we evolved this way, even that "feels" too arbitrary.

i wish hitch would take this argument straight on instead of taking the easy way out and pointing out that morality can't come from scripture.

Other Comments by 3legcat

46. Comment #57421 by TeapotTheist on July 19, 2007 at 9:40 am

3legcat wrote: "how does huck finn know?...the answer from theists isn't because god says so and we wouldn't know otherwise, but that god created huck (and everyone) with a moral compass..."

How ever often you say this, it is simply not true. Theists claim time and again that religion is the basis of morality. They don't say that morality arrived along with everything else. They single it out.

Other Comments by TeapotTheist

47. Comment #57426 by 3legcat on July 19, 2007 at 9:54 am

teapot wrote: "Theists claim time and again that religion is the basis of morality"

yes many do, though often they underpin that position with created (transcendent) morality.

"They don't say that morality arrived along with everything else. They single it out."

please explain, because this i haven't heard, normally i hear variations on the god created "natural law" argument.

thank you in advance for your patience

Other Comments by 3legcat

48. Comment #57436 by dgr8test97 on July 19, 2007 at 10:54 am

Hitchens is an arogant idiot. What is his degree in? One of those BS humanities degree? What expert is he to speak so far ranging? Compare his credentials to Sam Harris, a scientist who studied religion and philosophy academically and personally. Or compare him to Richard Dawkins, one of the greatest biologist alive. Or Dan Denette an sophisticated orator and philosopher who has spent his whole life studying human psyche.

Hitchens and Ali are too people this site should disavow. Hitchens makes the following error in his argument, some of which Harris got right:

1) Not all religions are the same. Does Buddhism have times of extreme violence. Yes...Every 300 years or so in China but Frequently in SouthEast Asian. I'll let the educated ones in this site see the difference between Buddhism worldwide. Let see the violence of Islam and Christianity. These two religion bring violent with them almost everywhere they go and violent involving them within and against other religions. The Chinese have a say: Buddhism came to China on the back of an elephant, Christianity came on the a war gun boat. Please note that the Taiping Rebellion is the most horrific and deadly civil war in World History. 30+ million died. Guess who headed this rebel force? So are there violent Buddhism. Yes. Is it as frequent as the Judeo-Christian religions. No. Does degree of violence matter, yes. Where Budhism is violent compare to where it isn't gives us a good data sample to see what in Buddhism makes it violent. Can we do the same experiment with Christianity or Islam. No.Does Budhism have ridiculous claims yes. Should we believe in these claims? No. Can Buddhist meditation and kungfu help us in our daily life without us believing in the supernatural nonsense? Yes. Is it as violent as the other relgions? No. Am I a Buddhist? No. As Sam Harris says Kill the Buddha when you see him.


2. Japan's religion in WWII is not Buddhism you fuk1N Idiot. It was Shintoism. The Sun God is a Sinto thing not a Zen Buddhist thing. I happened to have studied Chinese/Japanese History in College and was a Docent at the Northern California Holocaust Center. I know a little bit about Japan's role in WWII visa vi Germany. Japan was trying to rid itself of Chinese influence believing they were the pure race which was negatively influenced by the Chinese culture..including Buddhism. Does this pure race doctrine sound like Zen Buddhism? As a matter of fact, the Japanese wanted to rid Buddhism out of its school curriculum in the 1920s. So Do you history research, Hitchens.

3. Hitchens fuk!N heroe,Jefferson, was a fuk!N slave owning rapist. Did he do a lot of good things, yes. Did he have good ideas? Yes. Was he a good man? No way.

So Hitchens needs the FUK off and not gravy train off of Harris, Dennette, and Dawkins.

Other Comments by dgr8test97

49. Comment #57443 by Thrall on July 19, 2007 at 11:20 am

Ok. Here we go

but that god created huck (and everyone) with a moral compass,

Ok, but throughout many times in history, that "moral compass" that i believe I have does not agree with ANY of the worlds religions, 100%. Therefore, my "god given compass" is saying that all religions are wrong, therefore, anything they say about god cannot be correct, since my "moral compass" was given to me by god, and should be perfect, since given by god.

Now, this also doesn't say anything about people who think their moral compass is right, and my moral compass is wrong. Did god make 2 versions of the compass? The KKK really think that bloodlines and their rights are being infringed by letting blacks be human, did god break their compass? We don't even have to go that extreme. I feel that women should be treated equally as men, but I'll show you 45% of americans who think that women shouldn't have to work and cannot be as compitent as men and can't work as well as men.

Hitchins usually argues that because our own "moral compass" differs from that in the holy books, one of the two are incorrect, since religion says they are both "given by god".

This is not to mention, that throughout the ages, the compass has changed, and even in the last 100 years, the compass has changed dramatically, showing that the compass is more of a societal compass, than it is a "devine" compass. To think that your 'moral compass' is god given is naieve, and a bit silly, if you start thinking deeply about what that means, and Hitchens has argued this in the past.

@dgr8: You are arguing hitchins point for him, that "a good person does good things, a bad person does bad things, but to get a good person to do a bad thing, that takes religion". Yes, he's admitted that the book title is a bit broad, but you're missing the point of the book, and dodging any argument by saying "well, they aren't ALL bad".

Other Comments by Thrall

50. Comment #57452 by USA_Limey on July 19, 2007 at 11:51 am

Reference: 50. Comment #57436 by dgr8test97

dgr8test97, is English a second language for you?

I just want to give you the benefit of the doubt before I say anything harsh.

Other Comments by USA_Limey