More Active Posts
Front Page
D’Souza and Hitchens debate Christianity
 |
 185 Comments |
 |
Topic: Editor's Choice, Video |  |
Email a friend |
 |
Keywords: |  |
RSS 2.0 |
 |
Both comments and pings are currently closed. |  |
Share this: |
Watching the debate…
The intro speaker (student body president) has a nice hypocritical flair by claiming that the goal of the college is depth of intellect and open-mindedness while dismissing non-Christians as “the worst” using the old hackneyed quote from Yeats. In parts of the animal kingdom a “smile” is nothing but the baring of teeth, and it is interesting to notice that the smiling veneer of the Christian participants is fairly thin and the tremendous hostility they feel peeks through quite easily. Hitchens, while not the most kind of individuals, comes across as thoroughly genuine in his imperfections.
It’s great to see Marvin again, even over the Internet. Really glad to have had him as a professor in my time at UT; I miss it, truly.
Dinesh is up…
Right off the bat he throws out the asinine argument TJ has already spent so much energy apologizing for. The argument is so mind-blowingly fatuous that I have to quote it directly lest I be accused of putting words in his mouth.
He begins discussing values… “that the atheists cherish the most. I would list things like the idea of individual dissent, the notion of personal dignity, the idea of equality, the equal dignity of men and women, an antipathy to oppression, inequality, and slavery, and the idea of compassion as a social virtue. Now what’s interesting is that if you take a good look at this list you realize that these values came into the world because of Christianity.
His arguments involve…
1 - Christian nations help tsunami victims while “no one else seems to”. (Factually incorrect. Middle eastern nations did contribute tens of millions to tsunami relief. He is either a liar or is stupid. I leave it to the reader to make their choice. And I nod to C.S. Lewis for setting the example of honestly categorizing the insane words of a character in history.)
2 - He says that two American movements (Quakers and then evangelicals) are the first manifestations of anti-slavery sentiment in the world. (Again, factually incorrect. If his arguments rely on the reasoning power and historical awareness of Dinesh D’Souza, then his arguments suffer for it. Again, liar or idiot, one of the two.)
3 - He completely glosses over the hostility of the early Christian church against scientific pursuit and pretends it never happened, expressing mock puzzlement that anyone would ever dream that there is an inherent conflict between dogmatic religious faith and free scientific inquiry. (I wonder what he would make of the burning flesh of Giordano Bruno; we might call him Muhammad Saeed al-Sahaf instead of Dinesh D’Souza, “The flesh is not burning, it is merely being made to seem so by the atheist devils!” (that is not a direct quote, but satire))
An argument can be made that religion and science needn’t be hostile to one another, but D’Souza goes way too far in pretending that hostility has never even existed between them.
And again, a flat-out lie, saying that the conflict between religion and science was not evident to the great scientists of the West. Whither Einstein, Mr. D’Souza?
He then attempts to minimize the horror of the Inquisition and the Salem Witch Trials with a kind of moral relativism that should make anyone quiver. (”They didn’t kill millions, what’s the big deal!?!?” (that is not a direct quote, but satire))
–
Hitchens suffers at the beginning from having great arguments not stated very clearly; much like aiming a bazooka from the hip and not using the iron sights affixed to its barrel. I do wonder what that beverage is on his podium and whether or not it has properties that muddle the speech and faculties of logical coherency.
Essentially his opening argument is this: One of the problems of Christianity is that it teaches us that we have no faculty of knowing right and wrong without a divine source, and that this Christian teaching denies and destroys our basic humanity. (He gives an example from the Bible, claiming that the people of Israel had to know right and wrong, at least in terms of murder, in order to even survive long enough to get the plates from Mt. Sinai and the original ten commandments.)
1 - It is poor moral instruction to be forced to both love and fear the same figure.
2 - It is immoral to use someone else (Jesus, in this case) as a scapegoat for one’s own sin and a poor moral lesson to teach.
“The vicarious redemption by human sacrifice is an immoral preachment with very immoral implications. As is compulsory love coupled with compulsory fear.”
3 - The laws of nature are not suspended, something Dinesh himself argues, thus negating the entire concept of a miracle to begin with. So the idea that prayer can intercede upon the laws of nature is false and misleading. (“Nonsense! It is not moral to lie to children. It is not moral to lie to ignorant, uneducated people and tell them that if they will only believe nonsense they can be saved. It’s immoral.”)
He mentions that Christianity introduces the hellish (punny) notion of everlasting torture and damnation to the “Judeo-Christian” model.
Hitchens offers a “moral challenge”:
“Name me a moral action committed by a believer, or a moral/ethical statement uttered by one, that could not be made or uttered a non-believer.”
(This challenge is good in its own terms, but it could very easily be turned around on him.)
#1: The intro speaker (student body president) has a nice hypocritical flair by claiming that the goal of the college is depth of intellect and open-mindedness while dismissing non-Christians as “the worst” using the old hackneyed quote from Yeats.
The intro speaker (student body president) is a babe. I haven’t seen the entire video yet, but her speech was the best part of it so far.
#1: He begins discussing values… “that the atheists cherish the most. I would list things like the idea of individual dissent, the notion of personal dignity, the idea of equality, the equal dignity of men and women, an antipathy to oppression, inequality, and slavery, and the idea of compassion as a social virtue. Now what’s interesting is that if you take a good look at this list you realize that these values came into the world because of Christianity.”
“these values came into the world because of Christianity” proves this speaker is a liar. Those values came into the world long before the worthless preacher man Jesus was born.
The bit about slavery makes me laugh. In America thousands of Christians used the Bible to justify slavery. I have observed Christians were, and still are, the most immoral people in our country. Their constant lying to children about science and Jesus are just one of many examples of their immorality.
Bleh, the student body president speaks poorly with no rhythm, cliche mannerisms, a stilted tone, and dull text. Plastic.
As for the debate, there isn’t much of it. It revolves around the question of whether religious belief, specifically Christian religious belief, is a helpful thing. I’m not sure why Hitchens finds D’Souza to be so formidable a debater unless it’s that Hitchens is so substandard a thinker himself that he might find a great many people formidable.
D’Souza fails to demonstrate that the benefits arising from Christianity were indeed due to Christianity, i.e. he fails to make a case as to why those Western actions he views so admirably came about precisely as a result of the Christian faith and not simply in conjunction with it. Indeed, many of the benefits he identified with Christianity might be plausibly traced to Aristotle instead, though of course one might credit Aquinas for popularizing them within Christian circles.
Hitchens has a lot of ideas of things that aren’t moral but very little to say about why they’re not moral. Philosophers have been arguing ethics forever and Hitchens can’t even bother to back up his plethora of statements with a coherent ethical theory.
Ah, D’Souza points out the same thing about Hitchens and his failure to provide ethical grounding for his claims. “Miracles” are simply natural exceptions to natural laws? Ha. He said he wasn’t going to discuss theology, but now he’s discussing Christ’s resurrection in order to state that within the Christian worldview teachings Hitchens dismisses as evil are not so — but D’Souza started as an evidentialist and now he’s switching to presuppositionalism. D’Souza started poorly, but he’s getting worse.
Hitchens scores by pointing out D’Souza’s lack of positive argument for the existence of God, which seems rather important since if he doesn’t demonstrate such he must defend not only the usefulness of Christianity but also the idea that Christianity is helpful even presuming it’s not true. On the other hand the debate seemed to be more limited in scope than that, so it might be a bit of a low blow by Hitchens. Hitchens does a poor job with the question of atheism and objective good, bungling with an indefinite Islamic example instead of presenting a philosophical counter.
Hitchens wins on Einstein. D’Souza wins on the fine-tuned nature of the universe. Hitchens wins on the facism point because D’Souza ducked it, complained he ignored the USSR and China, quoted Dawkins against Hitchens (still on the “communists”) while entirely missing the point — awful. Hitchens gets to address the USSR and doesn’t do much with it except point out that bad things happened when the Orthdox church and Czar were in charge, and D’Souza rebuts by ignoring Hitchens and quoting Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett.
Bah, the questions don’t seem worth listening too, so the answers by both D’Souza and Hitchens stoop to the level of inanity.
So who won? I’d say they both lost. The debate was sloppy, both used faulty reasoning, and both failed to properly contextualize their positions in a framework necessary to justify them. Watch it if you must, but don’t expect to get anything out of it.
I’d say the debate with Doug Wilson was a better one.
D’Souza remarked right away, “in no way will I rely on Scripture.” …… My thought was “you can’t fight without your SWORD (Word of God) leaving Scripture out, thinking you can make any headway without it, is pure folly. You can’t fight darkness without the Word of God, you will lose every time.
11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;
15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
Ephesians 6
Pretty much the usual drivel on both sides.
The design argument ….
The moral argument ….
The uniqueness of Christianity ..
Hitchens knocks them all but could’ve done a better job. The same arguments are available on WMB and none of us are famous nor wealthy through publishing a book.
Hmm maybe some of us agnostic/atheists need to seat down with a few theists and write an argument counter-argument book. I promise I will only drink water during a debate.
D’Souza showed Hitchens clearly as someone who hates God Himself and has a belief, against Him, in the same way D’Souza has one, for Him. Maybe that’s why Hitchens didn’t know what to do when confronted with evidence of His love. (An uncouth “Gag me with a spoon” was all he could muster.)
I would have liked to have seen the case made for God inspiring the Bible (fulfilled prophesy, maintained accuracy over thousands of years, comparison with the Dead Sea scrolls, examples of 2 Tim. 3:16) and the reason for the uniqueness of the Christian religion (Jesus, Heb. 1:3).
MRS. D
I couldn’t agree more -
I often wonder why those who profess to be wise and knowledgeable, don’t use the PROPHECY in the Bible which has been fulfilled to prove many of their points. What I see are Christians, who believe ‘they can do it their way, ALONE’ it never works…..NEVER!
Perhaps the problem is very simple,…..they don’t know Scripture, and more to the point, they don’t take the obvious PROOFS of the Bible when confronted by a Hitchens.
The entire event was an embarrassment, but I’m certain that those involved have learned something so that this might not happen again.
I still stand by what I said earlier:
D’Souza remarked right away, “in no way will I rely on Scripture.” …… My thought was “you can’t fight without your SWORD (Word of God) leaving Scripture out, thinking you can make any headway without it, is pure folly.
You can’t fight darkness without the Word of God, you will lose every time.
fulfilled prophesy, maintained accuracy over thousands of years,
Mrs. D, Hitchens talks about the myths you listed in your 2nd paragraph in his book.
D’Souza showed Hitchens clearly as someone who hates God Himself…
It’s impossible for a person to hate what he considers a myth. An atheist who hates God would be hating “nothing”. That doesn’t make any sense.
“the uniqueness of the Christian religion”
It sure is unique. I noticed most Christians are so afraid of science, they lie about it constantly. They lie to their own children about science. This is child abuse and Hitchens has an entire chapter about Christian child abuse in his book. Christian are experts at abusing their own children.
If there was a prize for the most insane religion in the world, Islam and Christianity would tie for first place, but Christianity has caused the most harm to our country because there’s so many Christians here. Christianity is a mental illness and there’s an epidemic of this disease in America. On another thread people here are talking about who is the most holy presidential candidate as if that had anything to do with our government. There is god stupidity everywhere in this country and it’s completely out of control. It’s thanks to the insanity of Christianity this country has the worst science education of all advanced countries. This is a disgrace and the holy rollers are completely responsible for it.
Mrs. D at #12: I would have liked to have seen the case made for God inspiring the Bible (fulfilled prophesy, maintained accuracy over thousands of years, comparison with the Dead Sea scrolls, examples of 2 Tim. 3:16) and the reason for the uniqueness of the Christian religion (Jesus, Heb. 1:3).
I would like to see that case made too; but none of those things are true, so it won’t happen.
STEVEG - 15
You make a lot of claims. PROVE that the Prophecies didn’t come true, PROVE that the ‘Dead Sea Scrolls’ aren’t true -
I will be waiting for your next installment!
# 10: Victoria, I would agree with your statement here. D’Souza’s mistake is that he does rely upon Scripture, even if he does not “quote Scripture” (which is probably what he meant). Otherwise, he would be foolish in his thinking. As such, he is “answering the fool according to his folly,” thereby making Hitchens (and the atheist in general) “wise in his own eyes.”
Hitchens has shown a poor understanding of Christianity in the past (I noticed that post # 1 above failed to mention this), notably in his online debate with Doug Wilson (which I think is linked above), in which he was ignorant of the background of the parable of the Good Samaritan (this shows up, to a lesser degree, in this debate). He is also mistaken about the preservation of Scripture and the reliability of eyewitness accounts in his aside about the resurrection of Christ (admittedly, not part of the thesis for this debate).
I thought the debate suffered from poor moderation (normal, in my experience, for this sort of thing). Both gentlemen are allowed to “go at it”, with no one to pull them back in when they wander.
I though the comment in post # 1 was humorous: “I do wonder what that beverage is on his podium and whether or not it has properties that muddle the speech and faculties of logical coherency.” However, I thought that Hitchens was a bit more reserved in this debate than I have seen him in the past. Perhaps his incident a few months ago, when he was sauced and had to be restrained, has softened him a bit.
“PROVE that the Prophecies didn’t come true, PROVE that the ‘Dead Sea Scrolls’ aren’t true -”
It’s so easy to write a book of fiction and make all the stories come out exactly the way you want them. Constant rewriting to make it better and better helps.
When a god creature knocks on my door, comes in, and performs enough magic tricks to prove what it is, then I will believe in it. Until then, this magician is no more likely than any other myth dreamed up by ancient and very dumb humans. Gullilble people can believe in myths if they want to. I prefer reality.
TJ:
Or perhaps that anecdote about Hitchens being restrained from violence is a complete falsehood or a simpering exaggeration of what happened. You can watch the debate between Hitchens and George Galloway, and while Galloway rips into him in a very personal and enraged manner Hitchens does not lose his cool.
The Christian desire to be martyred at the hands of non-believers makes me extremely skeptical of any claim that Hitchens went off the handle and wanted to punch a cleric.
TJ - 17
You do bring interesting questions to the front line. The one I found to be humorous is……what is Hitchens drinking with that light latte colour?
I agree, Hitchens was reserved. But I would conclude that he had nothing of interest to say…..and sadly D’Souza had given up the most important weapon in this foray, as in the SWORD, which he left, useless (as he didn’t need it, or wouldn’t be using it) as he thought he could ‘go it alone’ …………. it never works. D’Souza lost the moment he thought he could ‘go it alone’ -
TJ, I know you are aware of the Scriptures below, but I post them for others to see, and explain that others might understand.
Peter wanted to walk on the water, Jesus told him to come, but poor Peter TOOK HIS EYES OFF JESUS and then sank………….. lesson to be learned, we can’t take our eyes away from the living God, we must keep our eyes upon Him. We can’t win anything without Him, we can’t stand without Him, we can’t do ANYTHING without HIM!
26
And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear.
27 But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid.
28 And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water.
29 And he said, Come. And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus.
30 But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me.
31 And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt? Matthew 14
QUWERTY
Instead of making a lot of noise, PROVE the ‘Prophecies’ aren’t true, and then when you ‘think’ you have mastered this task, go for the ‘Dead Sea Scroll’s’ -
You can can pontificate till the crow flies over the artic, (it can’t) but give us your PROOF, finally tell us what you believe with PROOF, that the Prophecies aren’t true, and the ‘Dead Sea Scroll’s’ aren’t true.
Nice story Victoria, but that’s all it is, a story, just a fable. Even people who claim they are god, can’t walk on water. People can float in water, swim in it, but they can’t walk on it.
After growing up and realizing all these myths were just stories for children, and nothing to take seriously, I figured every other grown up person knew these were all myths. I was surprised when I found out there were adults who never grew up, who never stopped believing in children’s fairy tales.
You can can pontificate till the crow flies over the artic, (it can’t) but give us your PROOF, finally tell us what you believe with PROOF, that the Prophecies aren’t true, and the ‘Dead Sea Scroll’s’ aren’t true.
Victoria, you’re the one who believes in fiction, not me. If you’re going to make wild claims, like for example there’s a god, or the Bible was not made up by idiots, then it’s your responsibilty, not mine, to provide evidence the Bible was not written to fulfill the same prophecies it made. That’s how fiction is written. Everything is made to look real, but of course the reader, even though he may enjoy the story, knows it’s all fiction.
QWERTY - 18 and now 22
You can’t do anything but complain. If you can PROVE the‘Prophecies’ aren’t true, and the ‘Dead Sea Scroll’s’ do it…………
YOU ARE JUST PLAYING GAMES, you don’t know the Bible do you, and you don’t know whats true, you have just been PLAYING ALONG ALL THE TIME, PRETENDING -
I would add, Victoria, that since your claim there’s some god somewhere is a very wild claim, a very fantastic highly improbable claim, you have got to provide much more evidence than normally required. You need some really fantastic, lead-pipe, solid, beyond any doubt evidence. Your old book is not evidence for anything.
Real evidence would be like the genetic evidence for evolution. You got nothing that comes close to that kind of evidence for your magician.
“you don’t know the Bible do you,”
I have seen plenty of the Bible, especially after hanging around this place, and I have received more than enough of the usual childhood brainwashing.
Every time I look at the Bible all I see is gibberish. Just the babbling of an ancient idiot is all I see everywhere in the Bible.
QUERTY
You talk in circles, you don’t know what is written in the Bible, and because you don’t you can’t talk about it, EXCEPT to say it isn’t true. You don’t have evidence to defend a fly swatter,……
Victoria, my friend, you are wasting your life away living in the ancient past. I suggest join the 21st Century and learn about science before it’s too late for you. I’m doing you a favor to tell you this. Don’t waste your life. It’s horrible to throw away an entire life just to live in a fantasy world.
D’Souza and Hitchens debate Christianity
Some people here might be interested in this exact same topic discussed on a science blog. Here it is:
D’Souza vs Hitchens
QUERTY
I knew you couldn’t answer the questions.
You haven’t done anyone a favour, except to uncover the fact, that you know nothing about the Bible, which is NOW very evident.
I know the Bible, but not near as well as you do Victoria.
Please follow this logic.
1. I know next to nothing about astrology.
2. Despite the fact I know next to nothing about astrology, I still know astrology is total nonsense.
3. I know a lot more about the Bible than about astrology.
4. While I don’t know everything there is to know about the Bible, I know enough about it to know it was written by idiots.
Did you get all that Victoria?
Now back to your problem, my friend Victoria. You really need to consider my warning. You really are wasting your life and you need to do something drastic to save your life. What I suggest is educate yourself. Learn about the natural world you live in, instead of wasting your time learning about a supernatural world that doesn’t exist.
For anyone who really does want to educate themselves, take a look at the link I provided in #29. While the thread on that science blog is suppose to be about the boring debate between Hitchens and what’s his name, the thread I linked to has turned out to be mostly a very interesting and very educational discussion of the natural world, especially evolution. I highly recommend reading the comments written by many biologists, all of whom are experts of evolution.
This is so priceless I had to steal it and share it. My apologies to the person I stole it from. It was comment #46 from the science thread I linked to earlier (see #29 of this thread).
Hmmmm. What’s so great about Christianity?
It’s a terrific source of fun for people who have managed to grow up and smell the coffee.
It provides a wonderful, accurate measure of human stupidity.
Think how much harder it would be to pick out the morons if people stopped calling themselves Christians.
Christianity is indeed great. Kudos to Jesus, for getting the moron ball rolling.
Victoria:
The burden of proof lies on the one claiming the existence of something not evident, else anyone could make an unfalsifiable claim and say that it is true until shown otherwise.
Three things that prove the existance of God:
1. No one knows how life started?
2. We can think.
3. The Bible gives us morals.
That’s it????
That’s the proof????
Then a number four snuck in. You can’t prove he doesn’t exist. Of course, you can’t prove that the center of the moon isn’t made from salmon flavored gooey cream cheese. Or that the Crab Nebula is made from real crabs.
I give up.
Adam, # 19: The report I read was from a transcript from the event, along with eye-witness accounts. I posted some links on a previous thread. As I stated above, I was somewhat impressed with Hitchens’ demeanor overall reserve in this debate, even if he is factually incorrect on some things.
What “eyewitnesses”? You are taking the word of a blog whose bias is so plainly evident I am surprised you are even referencing it.
How do we know Hitchens meant any harm at all? If you read the transcript Rutler sounds like a sniping coward and a bully, who began the whole exchange with an unnecessary personal attack against Hitchens.
Hitchens goes on the counter-attack; Rutler throws a fit and says he is banned from ever speaking there again. More of the moral cowardice so evident in these discussions.
So perhaps the reason Hitchens doesn’t mention it is because the subsequent blogging is hysterical and desperate in its search for martyrdom.
http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/the-journey-video.htm
http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/bible-prophecies-fulfilled.htm
Well, Adam, one of the sources I linked was an actual transcript of the debate. The other was a blog that referenced a private communication where the eyewitness’s name withheld by request. Is that biased? Perhaps. But if you’ve read the transcript (before you get to the priest), you’ll see that Hitchens’ comments, which included anti-Semitic remarks, insults aimed at Mother Theresa, and other assorted vulgarities, then a reasonable person, I would think, would agree that such banter was indeed beneath the dignity of such an organization. That was what Rutler said, if you read the transcript. Was Hitchens drinking? I don’t know, and neither do you. But at least two individuals who were at the event seemed to think so. They might be wrong, but their account, in most circles, would generally be considered more reliable than anything you or I could put forth.
As far as Rutler “throwing a fit” and banning Hitchens, that seems to be your own interpretation of the excerpt of Hitchens in the Vanity Fair interview. In short, you are taking Hitchens word for it (biased, I would think you would see) and possibly even misreading it (if Rutler is on a board, it seems unlikely that he personally could ban Hitchens on his own accord; one vote generally does not a ban make). Instead of attacking Rutler, I would think that you and I would both agree that Hitchens’ comments at the event are reprehensible and completely out of place.
The actual transcript you posted mentions nothing about Hitchens storming up to the priest or seeming to threaten him physically at all.
The blog mentions all that, and the blog positively trips over itself to show its bias against Hitchens, so I distrust its interpretation of the events and I certainly distrust the anonymous witness who has absolutely no reason at all to remain anonymous. That is the biggest of red flags.
The other was a blog that referenced a private communication where the eyewitness’s name withheld by request. Is that biased? Perhaps. But if you’ve read the transcript (before you get to the priest), you’ll see that Hitchens’ comments, which included anti-Semitic remarks, insults aimed at Mother Theresa, and other assorted vulgarities, then a reasonable person, I would think, would agree that such banter was indeed beneath the dignity of such an organization.
What did Hitchens say that was anti-Semitic?
What does “anti-Semitic” even mean if the mere criticism of Judaism is suddenly verboten? Is PC power really so strong?
The two bolded quotes that the blog’s author put out are as follows…
“But male genital mutilation is a filthy Jewish practice.” - What is anti-semitic about this? It is a filthy Jewish practice (quite literally in the case of rotting rabbinic teeth on the penis of an infant).
“But it doesn’t have to be violently torn and excised, in the Maimonides recommendation, which is, by the way — when Maimonides mandates it, he says, not to prevent you from getting a filthy disease; it’s so that you will feel the least sexual pleasure that’s consistent with making another Jew, through a hole in the sheet.” - The use of the word “Jew” is now anti-Semitic? That’s what they are, they are Jews. You are a Christian. I am an atheist.
That was what Rutler said, if you read the transcript. Was Hitchens drinking? I don’t know, and neither do you. But at least two individuals who were at the event seemed to think so. They might be wrong, but their account, in most circles, would generally be considered more reliable than anything you or I could put forth.
Even if he was drinking at the event, it is a personal attack for Rutler to say, “She’s in heaven that you don’t believe in, but she’s praying for you. If you do not believe in heaven, that’s why you drink.”
What a perfectly asinine personal attack it was, as well. It is interesting that the cowardly and insipid personal attack of Rutler, which was completely unnecessary, is completely glossed over by you. Man of what cloth, one wonders.
So Rutler leads his dialogue with Hitchens with an unnecessary personal attack and then says that Hitchens is not dignified enough or the club. Hitchens was 100% correct when saying “Well, it is now.” after an audience member disagreed with Rutler.
The whole episode is obviously Rutler’s fault, because he could not control his emotions while Hitchens attacked his sacred cows. Rutler made it personal and you can read it yourself in the transcript.
So I absolutely do not believe that Hitchens physically menaced anyone. I will need a source of information that is not so hysterical and insipid.
Victoria at #24 and elsewhere … the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. You claim the Bible has fulfilled prophecies. It’s up to you that it does, not to me to prove that it doesn’t.
By the way, there’s an invisible hippopotamus that lives in my back yard. Don’t believe me? Prove it’s not there.
See how it works? This is a very basic principle of logic, something you obviously have no understanding of.
However, I will say that the Dead Sea Scrolls do contain a lot of fragments of Old Tesatment books that, as far as I know, match pretty well the later copies. So? All that proves is that from about 200 BC to about AD 800 (the next oldest manuscripts, and the oldest we had until the scrolls were discovered) they were copied accurately.
That’s it. That’s all. Proves absolutely nothing about the truth of the stories.
So I’ll concede that point: Jewish and Christian scribes were good at accurate copying. Very impressive.
Er .. up to you to prove that it does, is what I meant to write in my first paragraph in #41.
So, Adam, you are now knowledgeable enough to “know” that someone who claims to be an eyewitness “has absolutely no reason at all to remain anonymous.” I suppose there isn’t any bias with you, of course.
There really is little point in going back and forth over this. I commented that I found one of your comments humorous (which was intended to be a tip of the hat to you, but I’m not sure now exactly how you interpreted that). What I did not expect is that you would actually defend CH’s completely tasteless rhetoric. On the other hand, by your own standards, you yourself make a “a perfectly asinine personal attack” of a very similar sort in post # 1 by claiming “I do wonder what that beverage is on his podium and whether or not it has properties that muddle the speech and faculties of logical coherency”, and yet you desire to criticize the priest for a similar act.
As far as the tasteless remarks of Hitchens, I will let the reader decide for himself/herself; here are the links again: http://www.takimag.com/site/article/hitchens_unhinged_part_i/
http://www.americanvision.org/foolsheart/blog/2007/10/
hitchens-proves-worthy-of-village.html
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?
GUID={CE04724D-AE02-4A49-891A-2909B0681DDA}
“SteveG: Victoria at #24 and elsewhere … the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.”
I disagree. It’s not up to Victoria to prove anything. She’s not in a court of law; and she doesn’t have anything to prove to you or anyone else. All that’s required is that she states what she believes. If you don’t believe what she says, then it is on YOU to have a reason why.
You see, that’s the problem with the “scientific” mind set. You expect everyone else to draw you a picture. And you have a predilection to be fatally skeptical about everything and so you require an impossible and unworkable level of certainty.
Rogue waves are a case in point. Sailors, seamen, and ship captains, have described this phenomenon for years. But scientists would not accept the word of a ship captain, chalking these stories up to anecdotal stories from drunken sailors. Until one day, one of these sailors captured a picture of a 100 foot rogue wave passing over the bow of an oil tanker. What everybody else accepted as fact, scientists wouldn’t accept until they had a picture to look at.
The thing is, Mr. Steve, your kind of skepticism is unworkable in the real world. You aren’t accepting what Virginia said, not because she is wrong, not because her account of things is invalid or without merit, but because your fatal skepticism requires your automatic, “a priori” dismissal of Victoria. In the real world, Victoria would be believed until we found good evidence of her unreliability. In the real world, we accept what people tell us unless that person has given us reason to doubt their word.
By asking for proof, you are calling Victoria a liar. Your default assumption is that she is a deceiver, unreliable, and lacking integrity. But you have absolutely no reason to believe that Victoria is such a person. Do you? I don’t think so.
Think about how you live in the real world man. Do you go around asking everybody for proof? I doubt it. I’m sure you have people you trust. You wouldn’t doubt their word or call them a liar. If you are going to defend Qwerty who has no integrity at all, against Victoria who has never given you reason to doubt her character, then go find your own proof man.
“Qwerty who has no integrity at all”
Ruddle, you are the only Christian on this blog who claimed Hitchens is a theist, which would be a big surprise to Hitchens, not to mention the people who run this blog and the Christians who comment here. Unless you are even more dense than I think you are, you have to know you were lying. Since everyone, even the Christians, know you are wrong about Hitchens, I have to wonder what motivates you. It seems like you are intentionally trying to prove how dishonest you are. Then you accuse me of having no integrity. I may be a lot of things, but I would never call an atheist a theist, nor would I call a theist an atheist. I always try to be honest, for the simple reason I wouldn’t want the reputation you have.
“Ruddle, you are the only Christian on this blog who claimed Hitchens is a theist, which would be a big surprise to Hitchens, not to mention the people who run this blog and the Christians who comment here.”
As I said, it was Hitchens himself who said he was a theist. Not me.
“Unless you are even more dense than I think you are, you have to know you were lying.”
I doubt you would recognize a lie if it bit you on the behind. However, I didn’t merely make a rash statement as you often do. I proved my case from his own words. The title of his book is, “God is not great.” The predicate assumes the existence of the subject. If you don’t understand this, ask someone to explain it to you.
“Since everyone, even the Christians, know you are wrong about Hitchens, I have to wonder what motivates you.”
Why not simply ask? But I doubt you want to know.
“It seems like you are intentionally trying to prove how dishonest you are.”
You have made two mistakes. First, you have confused consensus opinion for fact. Just because “everyone, even Christians” affirm something to be true, does not make it true.
Second, just because someone makes a claim about themselves, e.g. “I am an atheist.” This does not necessarily mean that man is truly an atheist. If Hitchens ever claimed to be an atheist, his book title belies his claim. He announced to the entire world, in print, that God is not great. We have no reason to suspect that Hitchens does not intend to postulate the truth the way he sees it. He believes that God is not great, which assumes that God is.
“Then you accuse me of having no integrity.”
Prove me wrong.
“I may be a lot of things, but I would never call an atheist a theist, nor would I call a theist an atheist.”
I didn’t call an atheist a theist. I pointed out that Hitchens thinks he is a theist.
“I always try to be honest, for the simple reason I wouldn’t want the reputation you have.”
You say you “try” to be honest, which implies that you sometimes are not honest. Were you being honest in your last post, or was that one of those times you failed? Can you point out which posts you submitted in which you weren’t being honest so that we might know when you were lying?
When you tell lies and are being deceitful, do you know you are lying? How often do you lie, some of the time? most of the time? What purpose does it serve you to lie? Do you intend to hurt others or does it give you pleasure?
I know you are trying not to lie. But you do lie. You said it yourself. Do you want to lie now?
incredibly boring
TJ:
I never said that I absolutely know (thanks for the misleading quotation marks, by the way) that the anonymous participant has no reason to remain anonymous, but I can imagine no scenario in which is anonymity would be necessary. Can you?
There really is little point in going back and forth over this.
Had you meant this you would have stopped your commentary here, but you did not. Odd.
What I did not expect is that you would actually defend CH’s completely tasteless rhetoric.
He is Christopher Hitchens. They invited Christopher Hitchens and were disgusted by his “completely tasteless rhetoric”? Let me pick up a prostitute off the street and then act outraged when she wants to have sex for money.
The simple fact of the matter is that you know that Rutler started whatever fracas ensued with a personal attack against Hitchens and that’s why you pulled that completely dishonest “there is no point going back and forth over this” move.
On the other hand, by your own standards, you yourself make a “a perfectly asinine personal attack” of a very similar sort in post # 1 by claiming “I do wonder what that beverage is on his podium and whether or not it has properties that muddle the speech and faculties of logical coherency”, and yet you desire to criticize the priest for a similar act.
Our acts were in no way similar.
First, I am not wearing (and hiding behind) the team uniform of a cabal of child molesters and their protectors that is the subject of the debate and controversy in question. Second, my remark would undoubtedly make Hitchens laugh, and I would laugh with him, because it is an obvious joke that is written purposefully in his own writing style. Third, my obvious joke in no way attempted to blow up debate with melodramatic sanctimony.
You falsely accused Hitchens of anti-Semitism.
You claimed without good evidence that Hitchens “had to be restrained” from attacking a priest.
And when that failed, you disingenuously claimed that the discussion itself was unfruitful, all the while attempting to continue debate.
Roger:
When did Hitchens claim to be a theist?
Adam: When did Hitchens claim to be a theist?
Roger: Hitchens didn’t “claim” to be a theist. As I said above, what people claim about themselves and what is actually true about them can be two different things.
I argued in another thread that Hitchens’ book title reveals himself to be a theist.
Here is what I said,
What do we make of Christopher Hitchens statement “God is not great”? Assuming that Mr. Hitchens intends to express an axiom he believes to be true, he tells us that God has the property “not great.” Now, since things without existence have no properties, Mr. Hitchens must believe God exists, else why would he ascribe the property, “not great” to something that has no existence?
Clearly, Mr. Hitchens is a theist, who disagrees with other theists about God’s essential qualities. Whatever others might mean by “great”, perhaps: superior, almighty, boundless, important, honorable, and etc. Mr. Hitchens would ascribe to God an antithetical quality, perhaps: inferior, insignificant, limited, inadequate, dishonorable and etc. However, to ascribe any kind of quality at all to God presupposes his existence. He uses the copula “is” to make a truth statement about a being presumed to exist.
If Mr. Hitchens truly affirmed that God did not exist, he could not ascribe any other quality to him except non-existence. He posits his belief without any contingency; “God is not great,” says he without supposition or uncertain possibility. God certainly exists, but he is not great according to him. The dispute centers around a being, which Mr. Hitchens and his religious opponents agree exists, but can not accept each other’s dogma.
Roger
Excellent, it needed to be said, and you made the POINT that Hitchens is in fact a “theist”, even though the poor man can’t see it for himself, and those around him, who agree with him can’t see it either.
Thanks Victoria.
I have debated Atheists in the past and most of the good natured ones see God as their favorite fictional character. The others, who claim to be atheists, are really closet theists with a grudge against God for some perceived injustice. These spend a lot of time arguing on Christian discussion boards.
Resentment of God creates much anxiety, which these attempt to release by projecting their resentment onto Christians. You may be able to see this process in action as you watch for, first, a high level of vitriolic comments, followed by condescending and trite observations, and then a remorseful tone as the anxiety subsides.
Victoria, I thought you were an honest person, unlike one subhuman who visits here. I’m disappointed I was wrong about you. Do you also think black is white, and war is peace?
Roger
I agree regarding the “closet theists with a grudge against God for some perceived injustice.” They do spend a great amount of time arguing wherever they can find an audience, who might give them some time - but more importantly, might convince them that God is truly who He says He is in His Word.
I can remember my uncle who didn’t believe, trying to convince my father (who was a Biblical Scholar) of his beliefs. It never failed to amaze me, the discussions they had. When I was a little girl of about 9 or so, my uncle took his daughter and I to the church he attended, (Christian Science) I was very offended by their beliefs, and driving back to the house after Church made my case…….I tried to convince my uncle that Heaven was real, that everything the Bible said was true, even the streets of gold. I remember my uncle trying to convince me otherwise, but I knew that part of the Bible and he wasn’t able to take away my trust in Jesus as my Savior.
The education which my parents so lovingly gave me, the joy of knowing Jesus Christ as Savior, whom my mother led me to, when only a child I would never be able to thank enough. Even as I grew older, going over Scripture, making sure of my beliefs, researching Prophecy, the ‘Dead Sea Scrolls’ it is REAL, the whole truth is in God’s Word for all who will search for HIM.
It’s sad to see those who resent God for whatever their life has become, due to circumstances which the ‘atheist’ holds as God’s ‘fault’ - They never realize that it is God’s design which is in progress, and has been, since He created the world.
“resent God”
That makes as much sense as “resent the tooth fairy”.
How, Victoria, does a person resent something that doesn’t exist?
I suggest you need to work on your logic skills.
“He created the world.”
That’s a scientific claim, Victoria, for which you have no evidence. All planets, including ours, have formed naturally. The man-made magician, who you have been brainwashed to believe in, had nothing to do with the formation of solar systems, and if you had any understanding of science at all, you would know this.
QWERTY
You and I are parting ways - You are insulting my beliefs in my LORD and Savior, you have no respect for God -
You haven’t a clue as to my education, which is one of your first mistakes, of which I am sure you have made before on this BLOG -
I hope one day you will come to love Jesus Christ, but if you don’t…….you can NEVER blame the Believers on this BLOG, you have heard the Gospel, and if you don’t believe, it is YOUR LOSS - You will one day stand before the LORD, and you will have not ONE EXCUSE for not hearing about Christ the Savior of the world -
Roger:
Now, since things without existence have no properties, Mr. Hitchens must believe God exists, else why would he ascribe the property, “not great” to something that has no existence?
Your statement “things without existence have no properties” is false. You even contradict your own premise by subsequently stating that “If Mr. Hitchens truly affirmed that God did not exist, he could not ascribe any other quality to him except non-existence.”
Pick an argument, because yours defeats itself before anyone else has a chance to tear it apart.
And while I am tearing it apart, god exists as a concept, just like Santa Claus, Zeus, and any other creature of imagination. Thoughts have properties, and stories certainly do. Raskalnikov does not exist, but his psyche is tortured.
Honestly, Roger, you are not talking with simpletons or children here. What is this nonsense you attempt?
1. Roger is entirely correct that the title God Is Not Great presumes the existence of God, but titles are often chosen by the publisher and not the author. Further, even if Hitchens chose the title himself, it’s unfair to presume that he meant it to be taken as a formal logical proposition. He could have reasonably meant God [As Historically Imagined] Is Not Great but simply used a colloquial title. This would be entirely in line with his intended audience.
2. For the record, I don’t like Hitchens and find his reasoning just as nonsensical as Roger seems to. I just don’t think we can accuse him of being a theist based on his book’s title.
3. Victoria’s attitude/tone comes across as being poor, perhaps due to a rather ridiculous overuse of capitals and boldface type.
Stephen
Listening to Hitchens and his exalted view of his intellect, I would doubt that anyone but Hitchens himself had anything to do with the title of his book. Stephen, you can’t make excuses for a man such as Hitchens, I doubt his ego would allow it, unless of course he has dug a hole with the title which would beg the help of any who would charitably make an excuse for him……
I don’t think, ……… I believe that it’s true, Hitchens made a BIG SLIP UP, he is either a ‘theist’ (probably) OR, he doesn’t know what the word means (horrors) or he thought no one would notice (perhaps) and now his followers will make excuses, even those who don’t like him will follow suit.
Upper case letters offend you Stephen? - that’s too bad, they aren’t poor form, but are made to make a point, which it seems you noticed, that’s the reason to use them, along with boldface type. Its just those types of petty criticism which show off your intellect…., rather than your knowledge. Mull that one over for awhile -
Adam Beckham, thanks for your “Honestly, Roger, you are not talking with simpletons or children here. What is this nonsense you attempt?”
I don’t know why some people think they can lie and get away with it.
Victoria, again your logic seems very faulty.
“you have no respect for God” makes as much sense as “you have no respect for leprechauns”.
Leprechauns and gods are myths. It’s very strange to claim somebody does not respect something that doesn’t exist. It’s really impossible to do that.
“You will one day stand before the LORD, and you will have not ONE EXCUSE for not hearing about Christ the Savior of the world”
Are you sure your disguised threat of torture in hell is a good idea? Do you think threatening people is an effective way to convince them of anything?
Victoria,
1. I have no doubt Hitchens thinks very highly of his intellect — and I most certainly do not. The fact remains, however, that books are commonly titled by their publisher and not the author. Given this possibility, I would not want to err by accusing Mr. Hitchens of theism based on something he may not have even written.
2. Hitchens is an extremely sloppy thinker, which is precisely the reason that I think so little of his intellect. Given that his arguments are often very poor, I find it perfectly reasonable that — if he did in fact title the book himself — he did so in an inaccurate manner that did not precisely express his actual substantive position. In other words, since I don’t think Hitchens is particularly thorough, I’m not willing to presume that he’s thought through exactly what he might be implying to ensure that the words he’s using accurately convey his point within the context of his entire position. Further, to suggest he’s a theist based solely on the title of the book is a rather thin claim indeed, and I think better ignored unless backed by an analysis of the book’s text itself (which Roger may very well have rightly noted within the body of the book — I have not read it).
3. “Offend”, no, but uppercase letters are poor form for internet text since they connotate shouting. One’s point can be conveyed so much more thoughtfully without them, a la Roger.
Stephen - 61
Even if there is the REMOTEST chance that Hitchens allowed someone else to name his book, he certainly would have understood the ramification’s of such a ‘title’ and would have corrected it. I believe that Hitchens ’slipped’ ….. his title proves it….. the reason I believe this is because he didn’t catch it, ….it had no impact on him, because he really isn’t an atheist, however much he argues to the contrary.
Let’s forget the thorough part, he knew what the title of the book would be, whether he named it, or the publisher. He has enough clout to name the book whatever he wanted. He slipped, he is a theist! All the loud combustion of words can’t change the fact which the title of his book “God is not great” elicits!
Stephen - 62
I don’t know how long you have been on the BLOGS, but THINGS HAVE CHANGED on the internet - uppercase is no longer a big deal, and bold is not considered bad form -
The BLOGS are very different from a few years ago, there is much more freedom when posting,……. PROGRESS, think PROGRESS -
Oh God.
^^Not the slightest bit taken in vain^^
A well known atheist should not have to include adjectives like man-made or imaginary when they talk about god myths. Only somebody who is incredibly dense (or somebody who is a bloody liar) would say Hitchens is a theist. I’m sure Hitchens would feel insulted if somebody called him that because theist is just another word for idiot.
Take a look at this Victoria.
1. The bible god is a bloody savage, who enjoys murdering babies, and who deserves to be executed.
2. The man-made bible god is a bloody savage, who enjoys murdering babies, and who deserves to be executed.
#1 leaves out the adjective “man-made” but the writer of that sentence, me, is most definitely an atheist. Like Hitchens, I am convinced anyone who believes there’s some god living somewhere, is childish, brainwashed, lazy, and gullible.
This fake debate about whether or not Hitchens is an atheist is pure idiocy and pure dishonesty. Hitchens has been a subject on this blog for a long time now, and never before have I heard anyone make the idiotic suggestion this well known atheist is a theist. You two people who are making this ridiculous claim should be ashamed of yourselves. You are only proving you are either extremely dishonest or extremely dense, and even the Christians here would agree with me.
Stephen:
Roger is entirely correct that the title God Is Not Great presumes the existence of God
What color is Nemo? (Please answer this.)
He could have reasonably meant God [As Historically Imagined] Is Not Great but simply used a colloquial title. This would be entirely in line with his intended audience.
His intended audience has the requisite intelligence to decipher an obvious metaphor and snarky allusion.
Victoria:
What color coat does Santa Claus wear? (Please answer this.)
I just finished committing more gerund abuse and come to this thread and discover people pettyfogging the thread not to mention Hitchen the thread so I have to belabor the thread to try and clear the thread, though it’s a hopeless endeavor, so I end up Sisyphusing the thread.
Adam Beckham and Stephen and others who are interested, you should know what kind of person you are dealing with.
These are facts. Not criticisms, just facts. It’s important to understand I’m being completely honest here, and stating only facts.
Roger’s last name is Ruddle. His knowledge of science is close to zero, but that has not stopped him from making scientific claims and saying dishonest things about scientists. He claimed the earth is 24,000 years old, and he seemed proud his estimate was so much closer to the actual 4,500,000,000 year age of the earth than 6,000 years.
He once, during a period of relentless harassment of me, made a long list of demands and he ordered me to obey his demands. He said if I didn’t obey him, he threatened me with more harassment.
Now he makes the wild claim one of the most well known atheists in the world is a theist, a claim even the people who run this blog, and virtually every Christian here, would disagree with. Unlike Ruddle, the Christians here at least try to be honest. Ruddle seems to be proud of his dishonesty. He was obviously proud of his attempt to boss me around and threaten me with harassment if I didn’t obey his orders.
These are facts. This is the true history of Roger Ruddle. I share this information, because you should know what kind of person you are dealing with.
Your statement “things without existence have no properties” is false. You even contradict your own premise by subsequently stating that “If Mr. Hitchens truly affirmed that God did not exist, he could not ascribe any other quality to him except non-existence.”.
At first glance it appeared you were indeed ascribing attributes to non-existent things, which is a contradiction, until I understood your view of non-existence includes fictional characters.
In my view, this is a very broad, loose, and unworkable definition of non-existence. And it would appear you either, know this or suspect it, since your argument quickly turned to “thoughts” and “concepts”, which we both agree DO have existence. That is, you really couldn’t find a way to rationally disagree with my statement that non-existent things have no attributes, so you decided to lump “thoughts” and “concepts” into a loose catagory of non-existence, which is untenable even by your understanding.
It would appear from your subsequent statements that you allow Mr. Hitchens to maintain he is an atheist because his book title is not a claim about the real God, but merely denigrates a fictional character called “God”: the trite assertion that some fictional character named “God” is not great, being along the same lines as Rowling’s assertion that Dumbledore is gay.
So we ask the question, what do we make of his book title? When Hitchens declares “God is not great” is he talking about a fictional character in a piece of literature or the God who really exists? Is he speaking as an atheist to a world of theists or as a book critic?
After all, Dumbledore exists within the world of Hogwarts as described in a narrative given in 6 or 7 novels (I can’t remember the exact count.) All one need do is read the novels with the question in mind, “Is Dumbledore Gay?”, looking for clues of his sexual orientation.
Likewise, all one need do is read the literature in which this “fictional” character exists with this question in mind, “Is God great?”, looking for clues to his greatness or lack thereof.
So what is Mr. Hitchens’ book about? Does his book survey the literary “works of fiction” which speak to the issue of “God’s” greatness and from an objective point of view? That is, since he believes God is a fictional character and that our scriptures are works of fiction, does he attempt to survey these works with an objective point of view and report to his readers his objective findings with that question in mind? Or is his book about something entirely different?
His full title is “God is not great: How religion poisons everything.” This does not appear to be one literary author’s opinion about another literary work of fiction to examine the question of the greatness of it’s main character. Rather, it appears to be a polemic against religion, not a discussion of God per se.
Roger:
So we ask the question, what do we make of his book title? When Hitchens declares “God is not great” is he talking about a fictional character in a piece of literature or the God who really exists?
The fictional character, obviously.
Is he speaking as an atheist to a world of theists or as a book critic?
Both, and even more than that.
After all, Dumbledore exists within the world of Hogwarts as described in a narrative given in 6 or 7 novels (I can’t remember the exact count.) All one need do is read the novels with the question in mind, “Is Dumbledore Gay?”, looking for clues of his sex