Debate: Hitchens vs. Hitchens (14 of 14)

Brothers Christopher and Peter Hitchens debate the Iraq War and religion at an event organized by the Hauenstein Center for Presidential Studies with the support of the Center for Inquiry and the Interfaith Dialogue Association.

[@writersblock26]

Thank you for posting this, HauensteinCenter.

[@requiemdexter]

"You should take it back, you owe me an apology!" Awesome! :)

[@Echelon030]

I loved how he worded it... "It's obviously futile... Invincible faith". Textbook case of the pot calling the kettle black.

[@robertk2007]

well said

[@infokemp]

Please tell me what are the Protocols of the Elders of Zion?

[@BoozyBeggar]

"You owe me an apology." Whew, Hitch really came at him with both barrels blazin on that one. I started clapping without realizing it.

[@angryafghan]

@egodrive no lol pretty sure it's a reference to the Yiddish term, basically means "little boy" and very apt LOL thanks for reminded me!

[@herzogf22]

While I have not had the pleasure of meeting both of them, I have had the pleasure of meeting Christopher; and have to admit that he is quite a piece of work. It should further be said that he admits when he overstates his point, something I give him credit for. In this debate however he firmly believed in the positions he took.

[@niginit]

You notice how Peter has absolutely nothing to say on this entire point? "you owe me an apology" We're waiting.

[@trailofdeadpeople]

That man won't forget the name Christopher Hitchens for the rest of his life.

[@bootymanager]

I'd live to be around the dinner table at Christmas with these two blokes. It would go off. If their Mum and Dad are still alive, imagine trying to get them to calm down and shut up for 5 minutes.

[@ghostbuddy]

@jameshanley40 Your right in observing how it is interperted can make all the difference. But when we say interperted we really mean to say- depending on what parts does the person choose to ignore, and what parts do they choose to put emphasis on. Ultimately, barring a rewrite, the books will always say the same thing. The old testament will always look at imperalism, slavery, and genocide as if it was not only okay but demanded of the jews by god.

[@heinz57]

they must have fun Christmas parties

[@Helmutandmoshe]

I'm a professor of Russian and Soviet history. Christopher Hitchens simply does not know what he's talking about on this subject. He's doesn't have the mind for true philosophy either. He's just a clever commentator on modern politics.

[@kaeBR]

"he should have used the opportunity to remind his audience that atheism is only the beginning of morality, and not the solution" But he *does* stress that almost every time the issue comes up. That's exactly what he means when he says "Atheism isn't sufficient, only required". Hell, he said exactly that in this debate.

[@ravi00090]

Well, I have to admit one thing here. That compared to all the people Christopher has debated, only and only his brother Peter seems to have at least some constructiveness to himself.

[@xyoop]

Prohibit Peter from using words with S, please

[@GregoryWalsh]

What is the word Christopher uses? "You lose, _____."

[@Cristinact]

Pride... the worst sin, isn't it, Christopher?

[@AsSomedayItMayHappen]

Is it bad that I get sadistic joy out of watching Hitchens destroy like this.

[@nmonowbnrtnhortnhojn]

The hypocracy is unbelievable from Christopher. He argues that we know far more now a days than in the years of the birth of christianity, that we have matured and grown a staggering amount, that we are in this superficial utopia of knowledge. Now this would apear that the systems of goverement have been successful by his own omition but there has never been a secular goverment, so all this sucess is from religious "medling in politics". Why on earth would you want a secular system?

[@sacredgeometry]

@AgaMbadi That "old bastard" was his and yes...yes he did.

[@egodrive]

@angryafghan Isn't he referring to "Bolshevik" ? It does sound the same and holds more relevance I guess.

[@KapteinPuma]

"You lose, boy chick. You lose, boy chick." Pwnage, Hitchens-style is always amusing to watch

[@Helmutandmoshe]

@TorontoLarrivee He compares the "de-Clericalization" of the Soviet Union with other modern states in a way that makes it evident that he is not familar with post cold war soviet scholarship. This process within the Soviet Union was categorically different and most certainly was not driven by the Othodox church. I have only 170 characters left but I encourage you to examine the scholarship or Riasanovsky or David MacKenzie as a start. Hitchens is not a historian in the least.

[@ryanbeckenbaugh]

I feel like Christopher could make a good argument...and convince that its true...for the motion "Unicorns exist."

[@BryanAJParry]

Because that doesn't get to the root issues..?

[@nocab1984]

"I'd now how to if I was capable of a low blow, but as you know, I'm not" haha

[@navylaks2]

I guess this is why I am agnostic

[@1DeathWalkingTerror1]

Christopher Hitchens wipes the floor with all yet again!!!

[@flipperth1]

In response to Peter: 1. The french revolution was not founded upon atheistic or rational principles c.f. Thomas Paine in this regard 2. The soviet union was quasi (if not wholly) religious as the leader was deemed to have properties which were normally the reserve of the supernatural. I've only watched up to 2:52 before posting this comment so no doubt Dr. Hitchens has responded appropriately in this regard!

[@ghostbuddy]

@jameshanley40 Marxist communism by neccessity was atheist. Its overarching point was that any division in society caused instability. This extended to religious institutions, and the habit of looking at people as believers/ none believers. Leninism (soviet union) and Maoism (China) both inherited this. Chris definetly (deliberate or not) exaggerated facts here. He normally concedes that they were atheist in the traditional sense of the word.

[@niinja2]

@vau0807 it was not secular? what the hell does taht word mean then? when secularists do bad things you are just gonna say they had religious background and blame it on religion again and btw if you say taht a country which tried to kill god , tried to destroy worship and killed priests is a religious state... then sir you are redefining this word religion and give me one reason why some other atheistic state is not going to become religious like USSR

[@vau0807]

After Christopher's incredibly potent answer, Peter's task is to establish that the political endgame of religion is historically superior to the endgame of secular atheism. Peter could have made a halfway decent case for this. Instead, he throws up the tired meme that the USSR is "secular", notwithstanding the elevation of Dear Leader to deified status. To add one more meme: Peter, I am disappoint.

[@BiffMP5]

Christopher explicitly said in part 12 that atheism is necessary, but not sufficient, for an enlightened and truly humanitarian state. But here he did lose the point that he seemed to make in part 12, which is that communist Russia still embraced a culture of blind loyalty and worship for its leader. Lenin and Stalin did not call themselves gods, but they were certainly treated as such.

[@chachieb]

I swear Christopher's last statement in this video is almost Shakespearian, but from Peter's prespective I suppose it would be "futile"

[@Tapiwa2006]

Christopher Hitchens, the greatest man alive.

[@Setzer]

@ravi00090 True but he still fails to actually exonerate his point of view in religion. That morality is tied to religious belief is bunk.

[@Jotto999]

1:27 I love it when Hitchens gets feisty.

[@BryanAJParry]

Hmm, I disagree with you. Hitch did it the right way. That the Nords have it taped doesn't mean anything; there is not needfully a causal relation, merely the possibility that there is some kind of correlation. So he needs to tackle the root issues.

[@daddybear]

Why doesn't Christopher use his intellect to divide/dissect/parse "Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, Russian Orthodoxy, etc.. FROM the Ante-Nicene Churches?

[@BryanAJParry]

Peter Hitchens is a prat. As I said on the previous part to this series, atheism is not a philosophy or system of belief: it is a LACK of these things. So how can a lack of belief in God be the cause? Some regimes may even have said "we are atheists, and therefore we will kill kill kill", but even then, they would be wrong to say that, for it is not possible for a non-system of belief, a non-philosophy to cause you to do anything. It was their systems of belief at fault e.g. totalitarianism.

[@BeholdZeus]

Democritus and Leucippius, and for that matter Epicurus, had schools throughout Greece. Their teachings were well known and very popular indeed. Yet this did not stop mass murders of one sort or another. It did not stop the killing of illegimate and unwanted children on a vast scale. And it did not lead to any finer notion of civility. Notice how Hitchens deliberately leaves Plato and Aristotle out of his idealistic list of atheistic thinkers...(?)

[@dookdawg214]

Hitchens always takes the long way around these silly questions. Why doesn't he just point to Sweden, Norway, Denmark, etc., who have the highest concentration of atheists on the planet and also have the lowest crime rates, best social programmes, happiest people, etc?

[@ghostbuddy]

@jameshanley40 "Then neither does theism itself produce mass murder. It needs a book and some other beliefs to lead to mass murder." You are confusing theism with deism. Theism refers to theology, the study of a religious book. By neccessity a theist already has a book, and a belief in the words therein. And I already disputed the fact that atheism leads to mass murder itself. Going back there, and saying "clearly they both do" without reference to facts or reason, is asinine.

[@ubermons]

I don't see how it matters what people's mentality is about it, as they are simply wrong if they think that removing religion will remove their morals. It is just false. "Belief in bigfoot doesn't have much to do with moral beliefs." Exactly, and neither has atheism. Both are responses to claims, nothing more.

[@dharmabam]

boychick is yiddish for 'buddy', or similar. (hitch considers himself Jewish these days; Peter, confusingly, doesn't.) it's more affectionate than it sounds ...

[@BryanAJParry]

Hitch explicitly states, here and elsewhere, that atheism isn't a sufficient condition for moral behaviour. So he kinda.. DOES deal with your point ;D

[@dredawg1981]

Don't try to go toe to toe with Christopher Hitchens, you will get owned. Guess he wanted to find out the hard way.

[@angryafghan]

"you lose boychick, you lose" #LOL

[@niinja2]

@vau0807 And even if you redefine this word religion its still secular in its origin. Dont you see, this "worship" is inherent to us not to religion, we all have a slot for "god", we only put different things in it.

[@lord69z]

Id agree with that - neutral and greedy as all hell. Not atheist not religious and not secular. Just power hungry - think of Kings of Old. They could be secretly atheist or religious but normally just served their own self interest brutally.

[@zxslipperz007]

"Civility is overrated" - HA

[@sebah1991]

Todays lecture: Never piss off the Hitch

[@obaidey]

Christopher Hitchens' argument is almost always awesome and unstoppable, until he tries to defend his indefensible "leftist" tendencies. If only he sees light in his Politics like he successfully and clearly does with Religion

[@ghostbuddy]

@jameshanley40 Your taking their arguements out of context. Atheists don't see any reason to believe in god, and observe no one else appears to have a good reason to believe in god. It is then theists who argue that atheism is immoral. That a moral system needs a god and a book to fall back on. Their rebuttle is very deliberately aimed towards the abrahamic faiths. That there is a great deal in those books that are quite demonstratably immoral. And thus the arguement isn't valid.

[@Cristinact]

@marcohorowitz8 All these, the offspring of pride.

[@KapteinPuma]

Yes it is amusing. The old man was being hysterical and nonsensical and didn't contribute to what you would call a rational discourse. He got the answer he deserved.

[@kaichi23]

realy hate it when peter uses s at the end of words cuz it goes all high and hurts lol

[@ubermons]

" the religious need a more convincing argument " No, they need a proper definition of the word atheism, that actually reflects what those who call themselves atheists believe and don't believe. Just like if I defined the word "christian" to mean one who believes in unicorns, and then criticized them for believing that way.

[@MakeshiftEstablished]

I'm just saying that you sound a bit more into C.H. than I think he would actually like and you should tone it down. In science and philosophy we have heroes and experts but not authorities, there is a reason for that.

[@angryafghan]

@marcohorowitz8 But God meant for him to lose it, as a test of his faith.

[@woweixiaomiandui]

Peter's actually better here, he knows what he's talking about, after all he has lived in the sovjet... It's almost frightening how much blind faith Ch has in atheism here, and also he is saying exactly how atheism most be to be seen as atheism. Peter could do the same thing and say that nothing bad has ever been done in the name of christianity since Ch cannot name a state or organization that has done exactly like Jesus said with his turn the other cheek, love your neighbour, love your enemy

[@cablepanos]

Good people do good things. Bad people do bad things. It takes religion to make good people do bad things.

[@elcristoph7380]

for a seccond there christopher seem very uneasy....though he composed himself..

[@MakeshiftEstablished]

Yeah...stop that. Bad dog.

[@ZeTurd]

I have to agree here. It is indeed true that Stalin attended a Russian orthodox seminary in his youth, but it's a spurious argument indeed to claim that this dictated his dictatorship (yeah, lame pun!). Anyway, a much better angle would be to liken dogmatic marxist ideology to religion. It's such an obvious angle. But ah! Hitchens still hasn't foresworn his marxist leanings has he? That's the Hitchens problem. As brilliant as he is, he can never admit error. It's actually kinda ironic.

[@rpcarnell]

Secular tyrants are a modern evil, so they have more weapons. Imagine Charlemagne, or the Inquisitions with weapons. By the way, Hitchens forgot the thirty years war, wiped out half of Germany.

[@maxdecimus88]

Peter gets all "flappy, shouty and stuttery" when he knows he has not a leg to stand on. Truely pathetic.

[@BryanAJParry]

Which Hitchens, lol! I assume by "Hitchens" you mean THE Hitchens, AKA, The Hitch, aka Chris 8)

[@wormdrink414]

Peter would make a very nice tea pot.

[@lord69z]

gaping hole huh? I KNOW you are incorrect - im an atheist and i value life over everything. No one has the right to end someones existence NO ONE. ( self defense aside )

[@ErikHelinNYC]

Hitchslap!!!

[@saelaird]

Absolutely, couldn't have put it better myself. My my... it seems Atheists are intelligent, almost exclusively so... I think I'm on to something! lol

[@davrothelegend]

could be Bolshevik

[@jakeyalmighty]

Seven sssizziilling saausages !

[@munkybrain]

Wow. 'it's obviously futile'... yuup hahaha

[@NeeTemereNeeTimide]

@MrEnglishmanAbroad I fail to see how you jump from atheism and secularism to nihilism and anarchy. There is no correlation between them. Secularism does not equal "no rules" and to claim that it does shows your ignorance on the subject.

[@twholland1]

@jjonson099 theres only one true Hitch :P (christopher of course)

[@robertk2007]

soviet union wasnt religous neutral say like china is today

[@mustafaupk]

wow, the old guy questioner got bitchslapped, wasn't very nice of hitchens.

[@ubernaffa]

Life lesson number one: NEVER, ever disagree with Christopher Hitchens.

[@PatRibsey]

Hitchens (Peter) is an utter cretin! He talks bollox on these points: 1. Morality 2. The ID movement 3. Confusing manners with morality Hitchens (C) talks bollox on 1. Not understanding the point the staying of the hand of Moses story

[@domaataajs]

Peters argument about the Soviet Union is just shallow understanding about the regime. Yes, christianity was forbidden in the USSR, but the "cult of leader" replaced it - the god was Lenin/ Stalin. It's a more degrading religion, but a religion. The same as now in North Korea