CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS SPEAKS AGAINST RELIGION [REACTION]

[@brianmccloskey8364]

The more I hear Hitchens and any critique of his comments, the more I am convinced he is right about most of what he said

[@ayatollahofarocknrolla403]

The difference between science and religion is that science will admit when it's wrong and religion never ever admits when it's wrong

[@TobyLerone76]

Yeah, none of the 10,000 religions created throughout human existence admit they're wrong (they can't all be right 😂😂😂😂)

[@Godtoh11]

Damn right and well said!

[@Godtoh11]

@@TobyLerone76 I would have given you a thumbs up but the emojis always ruin the words for me. I know it is just me but why little stickers following your well said sentiment?

[@dan226343]

@@TobyLerone76 I'm praying the flying spaghetti monster is the real one.

[@3tmslmn]

Yes, and when Science is wrong, what corrects it is more Science.

[@tamasdmmolnar9450]

I became an atheist after listening Cristopher Hitchens debates back in 2010

[@jeanneale9257]

Religion poisons everything Peace from England

[@televizija5646]

Even God would become atheist after hearing Hitchens.

[@3tmslmn]

Belief in "god" is one of the biggest stumbling blocks to our progress as humans.

[@novanights2chevy597]

I suspect the world would be far better off if people would more often ask, "Oh Really? Why should I believe you? What proof do you have?"

[@sgtbash001]

Religion won’t ever refute science. Only better science will.

[@rationallyjustified]

Hitchens wasnt wrong

[@3tmslmn]

Hitchens is out of your league. There is zero demonstrable, valid evidence "god" exists. Even if it(he; another ridoculous claim) did, it is unworthy of worship. I am more moral than any supposed "god". Most people are.

[@alexthomas9255]

Science isn't definitive because it continuously evolves with new discoveries and technology. It doesn't claim to provide the ultimate truth; it employs the most reliable methods available to understand the reality of the world we live in.

[@cameronswartzell5251]

Hey, really liked your take. I think a few of your criticisms were perfectly valid in the context given what the video *seemed* to be implying: that these were all arguments for Hitchens regarding philosophical truths. Your points like "wait, this is just political rhetoric and has no bearing on theology" were correct, but that's more the fault of whomever cut the video together. Hitchens *often* spoke on wide ranging topics such as politics, and most of his bombast was directed at specific religions and religious practices, and not limited to philosophy on the actual nature of theological claims. These were just sort of random Hitchens moments, not even particularly striking ones, on broad topics. Many of these clips were more from his talks on "all religions being poisonous" rather than on philosophy. Its a bit funny to note he may have "continued to work on his arguments", he had a pretty notable career on the subject. The Holy See thought highly enough of him that he as called on to act as advocatus diaboli and give evidence against the beatification of Mother Teresa That being said, while there are certainly brighter moments in other videos, there is also a lot more bombast and vitriol, something I think you would take quite a bit more umbrage with.

[@superstardeejay2468]

What a great comment, very eloquent and tactful. @ThinkingTheology has a truly awful take on what Hitchens is saying. This is clearly a social media take, lets not be too critical, lets not be supportive, lets try and get views, subs and likes. On his first point alone, he asks if people will be more barbaric in 3,000 years. Religion is more barbaric now than it was 3,000 years ago. Try going to Saudi Arabia and challenge the concept of their God and you may be executed. Try standing for office in the USA and be openly atheistic. You will be persecuted and your life ruined. His view on Hitchens is uneducated and crass. Ironically it is like ripping 20 pages from any religious book and deciding it is a good or bad thing.

[@adlockhungry304]

8:06 I’ve never heard so many scientific misconceptions crammed into a single sentence so rapidly.

[@danielconley7042]

Wishy Washy, dude. Hitchens has more knowledge and integrity than any "God Botherer".

[@thinkingtheology]

@danielconley7042 I've got no problem with Hitchens, but I don't deify him anymore than I would deify a religious leader. They're just men with strains of thought, some it works for me, some of it doesn't. As for the term God Botherer, that's a new one on me, and I assume it refers to anyone who believes in God. I've got no dog in this fight since I don't care one way or the other, but as a matter of intellect Einstein and Newton were pretty smart dudes, and fall into you God Botherer category.

[@danielconley7042]

@thinkingtheology I haven't "deifyied " anyone. I was pointing out that his arguments are better. Much better. As far as Newton and Einstein go, the former drove himself mad, trying to negotiate the political and religious zeitgeist of the time with his superior intellect and the latter only used the term "god" as a surrogate for the universe.

[@aaronmatzkin7966]

​@@thinkingtheologyNewton was smart enough to recognize that if he didn't publicly believe in christianity or proclaimed otherwise, he would have been imprisoned, tortured, or murdered by the christians who held complete control. We may never know what he actually believed, and it wouldn't even matter either way if we did. And Einstein in his own words, "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses". "For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions." And here he is correct in his assessment. Religion is a collection of absurd superstitions creating a somewhat cohesive narrative. I know the christian likes to pretend they have your fallacious argument from authority, but you don't even have that because in addition to being fallacious, it is also erroneous. Your acceptance of this fallacious argument, your use of it to attempt to convince others, and your falsehoods to get you there are exemplary of your "threshold" for evidence, and why you are convinced of the existence of your invisible god and validity of your silly mythology in the first place. And even if we were to grant you all of your conclusions based on your own "threshold" of evidence, in order to remain consistent, you would have to accept all other prophets, deities, miracles, and mythologies argued with the same flawed reasoning and poor and erroneous evidence. But somehow you likely don't. Why is that? There would have to be another process at work to be identified other than your situational evidentiary threshold. Please, please provide one good reason you think you have for believing in the existence of your god and validity of your mythology. I would like to identify for you your fallacious reasoning, your potential cognitive errors, and any factual errors you are almost guaranteed to include. Thanks 😇

[@JonasBugjerde]

​@@thinkingtheology Like Hitchens said. He is fine with religious people to have these "toys" aka religion, but don't force other people to play with these toys. Say for example abortion. I don't want my kids in the future or the women in my life to have to play with these toys just because other people want their toys/fairytales imposed on others. Same with circumcition with babies in early on in life, because your fairytale deems it necessary. Keep your toys to yourself, and everything is good.

[@atheistcomments]

I am an atheist who challenges theists all day. I can give my thoughts if you'd like to hear them .

[@rodbrewster4629]

Nobody says the galaxies are moving faster than thé speed of light. But space is expanding faster which in no way violates general relativity. But even if it were the case it would just mean that our theories need adjusting. Much like when general relativity superceded newtonian physics, buildings built using Newtonian physics didnt start falling down. The Gps system, which depends on general relativity, wont stop working just because we find a better theory.

[@operating]

You are are so ingrained in your religion that you cannot even see or want to see that to support your religion you are using methods a con man would use to convince. Because it is under your religion does not make your methods better or more respectful.

[@frankgroff2604]

"thinking complicates things...." huh? what? this is the problem with religion. it requires otherwise rational ppl to believe in something/someone without evidence. what other area of your life do you allow faith to be your guide?

[@deolux9563]

As an atheist myself I do appreciate your attempt to at least consider these arguments. Many/ most people of faith never even make that basic step, to consider another way of thinking. Good stuff 👍

[@frankgroff2604]

not sure how you concluded that advances in science that somehow fly in the face of what we once held as true is a "problem." scientists welcome challenges to their work. that's how science works. i know of no scientist who is so firm in his theories that he won't listen to another perspective (that's called religion). to the contrary, they like being challenged and are more than willing to correct their mistakes or assumptions. science is always evolving and is based on what we currently understand about a matter....and those truths are always subject to revision

[@orchoose]

2:42 You are not addressing the main point, the main point is that if we knew then what we know now these religions would never have been born, his point it not some comparative barbarism, its about science. And even if it was you are still wrong bc todays knowledge is based on science, Newtons theory of gravity didnt become barbaric just bc of Einsteins relativity, they are both still usable one is just more accurate, thats how science works and it will be same in the future. 4:14 You have to understand that what usualy happends at these debates is that the atheist side offten ends up arguing against manifestation of religion, the church. Its bc semanctic arguments against existence of god lead nowhere bc other side doesnt have singe proof that atheists can actualy address. Its all just mumbo jumbo of ''self evident'' and faith based circle arguments.Apologists love arguing at abstract level where they can endlessly run and hide behind same rehersed logic arguments used over and over, hide behind semantic. Second you start pointing out the evil of the church they start to separate God and church, god is god and church are ppl :D How convenient we can only argue the idea not the effects. So he is arguing what bible and church is saying not how you personaly imagine god. So again you are not addressing the point. 7:34 I have to point out two things, first of all it became classic that ppl who want to criticise science have to go to absolute fringe of it like cosmology and quantum field theory ignoring the overwhelmingly huge body of solid science, and second science has to be tested... it other words it has to actualy work. Thats why more often than not science theories are not wrong they are just inaccurate.Thats why comparing science to some believe system on basis of ''they also got something wrong'' is always false comparison. Science thrives on being wrong opposite to dogmatic systems. 12:48 Problem with your argument ''weigh in good and bad'' is that its based on false narrative. You assume that without religion you would lose all, the good an the bad. But you have to consider if the good and the bad could exist without the structure of organised religion. Could ppl still do good , do charity, work with kids, help poor ect. without religion, can we point out some alternatives in the present world? I would argue yes. Now the bad, lets take the child abuse and anti codom capaign in Africa which led to countless deaths and suffering. I would argue that both of these cases relied on dogmatic, organised and systematic nature of the church. Sorry for my english.

[@dan226343]

I was about to type something similar enough but really can't be bothered. Thanks!

[@orchoose]

@@dan226343 I was waiting for some answer but this guy engages only with comments he can brush off with his wishy washy shtick. He's not too keen on addressing specific points. Which is actually smartest thing he can do in his place.

[@AlistairClive-vz4dh]

A all powerful god that can't kill his arch enemy & leave mankind out of the grand experiment, maybe because there isn't a god or a devil

[@azrael516]

Straw men are not arguments

[@TobyLerone76]

No point trying to argue when it's all based off a random book 😂😂😂

[@dreadtrain2846]

@@TobyLerone76 Multiple random books with unkown authors.

[@pete6769]

So it hasn’t provided evidence for an atheist..what evidence is there for the theist?

[@paintedhorse6880]

The idea that people 3k years ago didn't understand that rape, torture, slavery and murder were ultimately undesirable things, is absolutely insane to say.

[@tjblues01]

I think you missed the point. Those 3k years ago people thought that those things were bad... if done to their own. But they were perfectly fine to those horrible things to others. Now we have different opinion about that. But Hitchens point was about all loving, all knowing and all powerful God who knew those things those 100k years ago and did nothing for most of that time until decided to finally give to humans a book with moral codes...An this is absurd.

[@paintedhorse6880]

@tjblues01 I think it was less of them thinking it was morally correct to do to others and more of them understanding that if they don't do it to them, then they'll do it to us. Everyone, literally, everyone knows rape is bad. But if we don't raid and rape and pillage them, then they'll do it to us. But I fully understand his argument. I'm agreeing with him.

[@JuninToiro]

'Putting all your eggs in the science basket can be problematic' How so? Genuinely asking, since what you're suggesting is, 'trusting' the scientific method can be just as or similarly cloudy as dealing with something like religion? Somewhat of a facile argument don't you think? Perhaps you're packing a Chekhov gun?

[@3tmslmn]

The "god" claim hasn't met it's burden of proof.

[@erinmobley168]

“Science adjusts its views based on what's observed Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.” ― Tim Minchin

[@kirktown2046]

"That applies to him" -- Come on, be charitable enough to give a skeptic their basic credit. His indigment of religious as submission to totalitarianism is an incredibly broad brush, but not unreasonable for our 3 major Abrahamic religions. It certainly isn't a charitable criticism, it's incisive. It's not distracted by the observation that religion survived because it promoted family building. Not unlike life with natural selection, those religions whose doctrines successfully promoted family building and societies that perpetuated them are still here today for family indoctrination and social redemption. I was raised in Russian Orthodoxy, and wandered through many denominations in the US seeking something familiar, studying in English, Hebrew, and Russian. The variance in interpretation, even today, is such a subjective mess. Religious writings provide ample fuel for any sort of leader, politicians especially, to affect their constituents. Study of history repeatedly reveals politicians wielding religion with as much or more influence than clergy. Big fan of Hitchens, he was a complicated, spicy, and brilliantly well spoken person. Thanks for your reaction and thoughts.

[@JoyoSnooze]

You refer to yourself in the third-person in your video description. Moving beyond that clownish behaviour, you could advance your channel by reading/listening to Hitchens' premiere work on the subject; "God Is Not Great, How Religion Poisons Everything", and posting a response to what you consider important talking points detailed within the work. If you wish to educate yourself properly and within a layered context, start there.

[@nzfreeski]

well said, poor video being passed off as intelligence.

[@brantheblazed4322]

This guy is not interested in any of that. He is just another spineless, disinterested, wannabe apologist.

[@nickokona6849]

The only way the destinction of "To the standards of an ahteist" is a legitimate is if you posit that atheists have unreasonably high standards for magical claims. Otherwise, it's a problem with invalid and unsound arguments in favour of the magical claims. In which case, nobody should believe them. These aren't normal mundane claims. These are claims to be aware of the fact there is a creator, and that the creator made everything for you. Maximal arrogance. And only invalud and/or unsound arguments being presented for it. As for the good things in religion. The good things in religion are the human things. Charity, good will, solidarity, community.. These are all human characteristics. Religion didn't invent them. Religin doesn't own them. You can bring food to a homeless person and it be a good thing. But it's better to feed them then to feed them and then try to convince them they're creatures born in sin, deserving of damnnation. Or that believing things for bad reasons is charitable. The good things religions do is because of the humanist views of all (most) humans have. There is no good thing that a theist can do or say because of their religion that an atheist cannot do or say for a secular reason. It'd take you no time at all to think of an evil thing a theist can do or say because of their religion that an atheist would never think to say. Without religion, good people will do good things and bad people will do bad thing. If you want good people to do bad things it takes something like religion.

[@tcrown3333]

An excellent, thoughtful assessment of Hitchens' arguments.

[@josef1049]

It amazes me how some individuals may struggle to recognize their own ignorance. Personally, I make a conscious effort to acknowledge my own limitations and constantly work on self-improvement. It's a bit frustrating to observe your critique of this video, as it appears you're not presenting strong counterarguments due to an inability to identify the flaws in them.

[@thinkingtheology]

@josef1049 I'm not dogmatically oriented so have little difficulty either seeing or accepting whatever weaknesses exist in my positions. Your assessment to my reaction in this vid makes it sound like you are partial to Hitchens' body of work. I have no objection to his atheism, I merely pointed out weaknesses in his arguments as I saw them. I do the same with theological arguments, and it's not uncommon for fundamentalist Christians, for example, to say the same thing about my view of their arguments as you said of my arguments regarding Hitchens. People like to hear what they like to hear. Such is life.

[@alexthomas9255]

At 5:45 you say, "I wonder why he went there". Could you explain? I would love much longer videos of these types of content where you go in depth.

[@thsun]

I think you are almost there, but your logic is still somewhat blocked by your christian fundamentalism.... But I can see that in the future you may free yourself from the shackles of religion.... I wish you all the best in the process!

[@thinkingtheology]

@thsun Your vision may be blurred by your anti-theism, as I am neither a fundamentalist nor a Christian. Hitchens' arguments have some merit and some weaknesses, and I merely point out what I consider to be deficiencies. I do the same with so-called Christian apologists, too. Neither side has a lock on the truth, however you choose to define "truth."

[@mandykidwell-parkin655]

What you said about sciences ridiculous because of the fact that it evolves and grows through its mistakes to find truth, that is provable. When mistakes are found, they are corrected unlike religion.

[@nzfreeski]

How the hell does it apply to him? He just explained the opposite

[@frankgroff2604]

before you so freely reveal your prejudices and political persuasion, some facts to consider: Hillary was raised in Park Ridge, Illinois not arkansas, graduated from Wellesley College (Massachusetts) in 1969 and from Yale Law School (Connecticut) in 1973. After serving as a congressional legal counsel, she moved to Arkansas and, in 1975, married Bill Clinton, whom she had met at Yale. re: her allegiance to the yankees, how do you know she's "lying?" one does not necessarily have to hail from a particular region to deems a sports team as their favorite and fans are free to switch allegiances at their whim. you might want to consider sticking to facts.

[@thinkingtheology]

@frankgrof2604 You might want to consider watching the video before posting comments that have no connection to what was said.

[@davethomas2605]

I think you missed the point on his first argument, he said that the Abrahamic religions would not have come about had we had the same amount of knowledge about the world as we do now, nothing to do with how we would perceived now from our own future

[@stuarthastie6374]

Usually he is respomding to to the argumentof particularly debater's.

[@2011littlejohn1]

Here's a question that I've never seen asked and is also never referred to in the bible, (which is the most familiar religious writing I know). Why did this god create us? According to the bible life is a sort of test and the whole human race will get judged on a specific day; but nobody seems to have a theory as to why it was all created. This alone give cause to doubt the existence of a deity and also makes the ''we're all born in sin theory'' somewhat paradoxical.

[@morecrayonsplzmcw4836]

Fair minded? Have you no idea how many people have died in the name of some god? He's saying you don't need religion to be a good person or society.

[@thinkingtheology]

@morecrayonsplzmcw4836 I understood his point and have no difficulty with it, but it is narrow-minded to think that we humans only kill or harm one another in the name of religion. Bloods and Crips aren't having religious wars, the Hells Angels, Pagans and Outlaws aren't disputing doctrine, politicians lie (and kill their enemies when they can get away with it) for the sake of getting our votes and retaining power, nations go to war to claim more land and natural resources, slavery was (and still is) practiced because certain populations were (and are) vulnerable to stronger populations, and so on. So though we can cite religion as one of the influences behind war and other bad behaviors, in the history of mankind there are many more reasons for death and war than religion. So you decide if that's a fair-minded depiction of our common history.

[@JacobSprenger]

12:47 - It's not about "some pedophilia within the church". It's _everything_. You need to watch the Intelligence² debate "Is the Catholic Church a Force for Good in the World?" (it's here on KZbin) - the arguments therein might just as well revolve around religion in general.

[@Chaturanger]

If there were undeniable and sufficient proof of the existence of God, the scientific world would be in turmoil. All the major scientific journals, all the university faculties would fight to receive the genius behind the demonstration. All the talk-shows, the television news around the world, all the magazines on the planet would offer millions $ to the lucky person to have exclusive access to the story of his discovery. But nothing happens!

[@A.I.Friends]

You can't claim religion and politics have nothing to do with one another. Your bible says that god chooses the leaders of countries.

[@mdom0277]

I really enjoyed your take. You seem reasonable and thoughtful. Hope to see more videos! :)

[@zezona2]

Why is all of the official images of God always a cartoon drawing?

[@Onafets70]

We don’t have a photo of him

[@throfur3489]

Cause he's fictional.

[@andyykmeryiddothomsen7411]

science is never wrong, scientist is!

[@trevorkirtley4208]

Well the whole thing about when scientists get something wrong they at least admit it, and work, and build on top of those mistakes to give them a better understanding of whatever topic it may be. While religion cannot be questioned and is firmly stuck in the way the think universe and everything around them works. But also your point on theories, yes many of them have been proven wrong but also many of them have been proven to be right/ the most accurate. For instance gravity, gravity was just a theory until it was proven by multiple people through multiple experiments. People have a pretty big misconception when it comes to science bc of what the media provides. They only will report on the most click baity things to get their views. Don't rely on major media outlets for your scientific news. I would recommend Ground News bc it will tell you how heavily biased the article is, it will tell you if the article leans more left or more right. But I use it to get the most reliable science news I can bc major media outlets tend to be heavily biased one way or the other.

[@Kurahaara86]

You're just bending some bible to your needs. Come on dude, just let go.

[@nzfreeski]

A thinking Christian - oxymoron

[@ravercorum20]

3:05 - Yes it is the case that in 3000 years time people will likely look back at us and turn their nose up to our lifestyle and beliefs; but no one is going to turn their nose up to the fact that we believe that the planet is a spherical orb unlike how to Christophers point; many of us now turn our noses to the creation myths & stories told by the bible. Which was his entire point. 4:15 - Yes but those who claim to know the mind of god are exclusively religious, inferring from scripture vagaries and making disjointed reasoning for gods sense of judgement fit whatever want at least warrants a charge of hubris, if nothing else. 7:06 - You say it's presumptuous to think that's all that bit of scripture meant but isn't that the point? These vague statements can be interpreted in endless ways to fit whatever judgement or decision you've desired post-hoc. It's ALL presumptuous, intentionally so. 11:30 - They're not "just pandering for votes", they're obfuscating their views and hiding behind the political leverage of religion to gain power in the here and now. Religion is playing the part is has always played, enabling power hungry men and women to climb the ladder of incredulity granted by those who value belief equally or greater than rationale. That's not a good thing, and it's not a good thing that theocracy can enable this without check nor balance. 12:48 - The good things like what? Charity for the purposes of proselytization so that impoverished peoples across the world can be ruled by the teachings that outlaw condoms, abortions and divorce? It's not for its own sake that this is done, it's for bringing the whole world under Christendom. 13:55 - Good and bad people exist on both sides. But I'll rephrase one of Christopher Hitchens challenges back to you; "Here is my challenge. Let someone name one ethical statement made, or one ethical action performed, by a believer that could not have been uttered or done by a nonbeliever. And here is my second challenge. Can any reader of this [challenge] think of a wicked statement made, or an evil action performed, precisely because of religious faith?" - you will notice that the former is (thus far) impossible, many challengers have thrown their answers into the ring without result, and the second challenge is instantaneity answerable, you don't even need a second to think of an answer.

[@JosephAscencao]

you should not edit.

[@user-ld4xx1el6q]

The flaw in the totalitarian authority argument, to me, is that the Creator (potter), as Paul says, has a right to make one pot for common use and one to be decorative. His reference to the surveillance state over looks eternity. To God all of history is a rerun which He has already seen, and his mercy is written in the Blood of Jesus (the Creating Word) on the cross to erase all those wrong thoughts and actions from the permanent record.

[@vasa2681]

Not much of a reaction.

[@MrReprob8]

My god, your ignorance is staggering.