Added: Nov 19, 2008
From: AlecsDeLarge
Duration: 9:51
What I love about Christopher is his resiliance and his ability to be both sophist and rationalist simultaneously. Dinesh shares this quality though I don’t know how to extract his religious intonation and find the research- or science-based philosophy that he constantly purports to use. Both individuals have their flaws. One need not go further than their debate over C-SPAN on October 22 in New York to see how Hitchens will curl up into his mental past and resort to “I think”-s and “we can only suppose”-s. Dinesh nevertheless demonstrates the same degree of ridiculous logic in his assessment of the “god of the gaps.” His examination of the anthropic principle is mind bogglingly dull and over rated. He equivocates in an area where he has absolutely no jurisdiction and yet he accuses R. Dawkins of doing the very same. I’m not expecting perfection out of either of these people, and my analysis of either individual says nothing about the arguments at hand. I have always agreed that both are excellent debaters and I think the frequency with which both seem to meet attests to this fact. What I am wondering is whom can we trust the most? Though I applaud Desouza for his honesty, I think he misses the deeper point of science as a nonscientist:1- The mind is able to partition beliefs so well as to have someone like Francis Collins admit the existence of God evidenced by observation of a frozen waterfall in the Appalachians while using more proven and beneficial tools of proof in rational thought for the human genome project. He is an example of countless scientists (both physical, theoretical etc) who will use methods of observation in the office that they would find strange to use at home or in a religious context. 2- Many important scientists have been Christian including Newton, Kepler et al. This does not mean that Christianity has had a good relationship with evidence based thinking (take Galileo), and just because many of the world’s greatest minds were Christian, doesn’t give slightest amount of credence to the truth of the belief. Most people in history have plucked chickens while also practicing religion, that doesn’t mean one must believe to pluck. There are many reasons for being a Christian, and one can be dishonest about the truth claims Christians make. Those who were honest about it, like Ben Franklin, feared at most for their lives and at least social standing to admit their disbelief. Notice in this, nevertheless, that the idea that science and Christianity can coexist has been slowly eroded over many years of research. Christianity cannot anymore escape mounds of evidence that cast doubt on scientific propositions made by Christians such as virgin birth, flight without the aid of technology, or even making water into wine with only the touch of a finger. The mounting evidence about nature and physics has made atheism finally possible. One can now have good scientific reason to doubt the existence of God, added to any immoralities or inconsistencies God will show in verse.That said, enjoy the show... leave comments at will and expect a rebuttal on my part as is customary.-Alecs
Channel: Education
Tags: atheism d'souza dawkins dinesh harris hitchens
Rating: 4.93 (55 ratings) Views: 6908' favoriteCount='54 Comments: 25
anything4ai Says:
Nov 19, 2008 - Yes! Exactly! That is the problem with Christopher Hitchens. He is just too unpartisan! Attacking Republicans one minute, defending them the next. Attacking Democrats one minute, defending them the next. Why can't he pick one party and tow its line 100% of the time? He gives my small mind a big headache!
yobculture Says:
Nov 19, 2008 - I realize you're mocking me but I think it's pretty funny that Hitchen's dismissed the "screech" of the liberals when it came to Palin. Now he's screeching the loudest. I find it admirable that he's willing to attack both parties but sometimes he comes across as schizophrenic. Hitch recently wrote a dismissive open letter to George Bush (the Mirror) but he neglected to mention that he endorsed Bush in The Nation four years ago.Sorry but there's no excuse for his intitial defense of Palin.
Gazzar Says:
Nov 19, 2008 - 2:51 - lol
gsullivan14 Says:
Nov 19, 2008 - Are you asking him to be ideological in his believe.
yobculture Says:
Nov 19, 2008 - I don't know why people keep asking me this question. Absolutely not! Someone as smart as Hitchens should do a bit of research before attacking the "liberal screech" against Palin. He initially defended Palin but now he's screeching the loudest against her. In his new Slate article he says that Palin is "simply a disgrace." Just a couple of weeks ago he said "The most appalling thing I have unearthed so far is the answer that she gave to a questionnaire... in 2006." Some research!
yobculture Says:
Nov 19, 2008 - By the way, I'm responding to gsullivan14 but it's not showing up that way on YouTube. It looks like I'm ranting out of the blue!
ShakaUVM Says:
Nov 19, 2008 - Actually, Goldberg basically conclusively proved that progressivism and fascism come from the same roots, with the same techniques, beliefs, and marching orders. The old saw that fascism is far-right and socialism is far-left has been overthrown.
Redfingers Says:
Nov 19, 2008 - They don't use the same methods at all.For example, we have had Progressivist movements in America. This is what they did: they passed legislation barring child labor, improving the conditions of laborers, increasing minimum wage...
Redfingers Says:
Nov 19, 2008 - ...then they created national parks and tried to legislate against government corruption.Fascists utterly obliterate personhood in favor of service to the state.Same techniques, beliefs, and marching orders? Are you fucking retarded? You expect me to believe that?
jp2007ms Says:
Nov 19, 2008 - Well, in 2004, Hitchens chose Bush because of the Iraq War, he said he was only a single-issue voter because that was the thing that mattered the most to him. He has often criticized Bush on the management of the war, but not for the war itself. He has also criticized Obama at times and praised him at other times. I think he tries to give as "fair and balanced" a view as he can, with the exception of Paine, Jefferson, Orwell, Mother Teresa, Falwell, Kissinger etc.
sashascall Says:
Nov 19, 2008 - "Christianity cannot anymore escape mounds of evidence that cast doubt on scientific propositions made by Christians such as virgin birth, flight without the aid of technology, or even making water into wine"Bad logic. It's not like the early Jews thought there was a scientific basis for miracles. The whole point of miracles is that they defy scientific explanation! They were just as scientifically doubtful then as they are today, because we understand they didn't happen through natural cause.
MagellansUnderwear Says:
Nov 19, 2008 - ah Hitchins. echoing the sentiments of angry athiests the world over
4449911 Says:
Nov 19, 2008 - She's a lightweight who digs in the letter R when she's trying to be cute. She's enjoying the ride and her moment in the sun. A very pretty lady, but out of her depth. She says if she loses, it will be the Will of God. Amen.
PathofReason Says:
Nov 19, 2008 - The ancient people who were writing these stories did not know what we know now. If a volcano erupted they thought it was the gods, If someone had epilepsy they thought it was an evil spirit. When something in the world occurred they could not explain they invented stories to explain them. They are nothing more than cultural adventure stories. Do you think in the future people will read superman and think it was a miracle? No because we have evolved to know better.
PathofReason Says:
Nov 19, 2008 - The ancient people who were writing these stories did not know what we know now. If a volcano erupted they thought it was the gods, If someone had epilepsy they thought it was an evil spirit. When something in the world occurred they could not explain they invented stories to explain them. They are nothing more than cultural adventure stories. Do you think in the future people will read superman and think it was a miracle? No because we have evolved to know better.
sashascall Says:
Nov 19, 2008 - That's besides the point. The writer wrote that Christianity saw miracles as scientific propositions. They certainly didn't, they did the opposite, they saw them as unscientific propositions. They had been around water long enough to know that it didn't naturally, scientifically, instantly turn to wine! That's the point of a miracle, it is an action in contradiction to known science.
sashascall Says:
Nov 19, 2008 - You also worry me with your application of the word "evolve". You cannot mean biological evolution, because you're speaking about human knowledge, but you surely can't mean social evolution, because that is hardly a straight, direct path. In fact, historically speaking, this culture has done more social de-evolving than evolving. There were much stronger societies than the ones we live in today.From what I've learned, knowledge is not dictated by truth but by agenda.
PathofReason Says:
Nov 19, 2008 - Or...the story could have been made up. Right? It's entirely possible that this story was added to the tales of Jesus to fill in gaps in his life, not to mention other "miracles" such as virgin births and raising from the dead are found in numerous other cultures. I mean people thought Alexander the great was a god. Not because he really was but people humans always exaggerate. I was mainly referring to OT stories such as Lots wife and Sodom and Gomorrah, The exodus, the flood etc.
sashascall Says:
Nov 19, 2008 - "Or...the story could have been made up. Right?"That's a different issue. We're discussing the interpretation of the text, not the credibility of it.
Tris10 Says:
Nov 19, 2008 - SHUT THE FUCK up with those ground rules lol...no laughs buddy
Thulgore Says:
Nov 19, 2008 - I think athiests have a reason to be angry.You have freedom of religion, but apparently it is socially unacceptable to have freedom from religion.I honestly do not believe religion should be able to advertise off of their own property in any way shape or form.
BryanAJParry Says:
Nov 19, 2008 - What's with the bleeping out of swearwords??
PokerPlum Says:
Nov 19, 2008 - There were religions before and after Christianity and many at the same time. My question to Creationists is "Why did you choose that religion and not any of the others on offer?"Presumably you have no proof of any of them, so why did you settle on that one? My guess is because you were indoctrinated into it.
peybak Says:
Nov 19, 2008 - haha @ 2:50!
yobculture Says:
Nov 19, 2008 - I saw it. Looks like Hitchens finally came to his senses regarding Palin. Or maybe it finally occured to him that this woman believes that Creationism should be taught in schools. Maybe he finally read that Palin thinks that "dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time." (Her proof? She had seen pictures of human footprints inside the tracks.) It looks like Hitchens finally got around to knowing who this woman is and what she believes. Finally.