http://youtube.com/watch?v=M05P9gO5Hkg

http://youtube.com/watch?v=r8FGxVDsSlw

http://youtube.com/watch?v=c6nK18aEgvI

http://youtube.com/watch?v=wDJHEBtwnQQ

http://youtube.com/watch?v=BeXrFHupaiw

http://youtube.com/watch?v=HROSXPB4ROA

http://youtube.com/watch?v=6QD0TT8fqvM

http://youtube.com/watch?v=eJePyhrpSKQ

http://youtube.com/watch?v=whTXTnnhLsU

http://youtube.com/watch?v=D6hxHZcibFk

A worthwhile debate between two interesting thinkers.

11/1/2007 1:03:07 PM

Nice.

11/1/2007 1:30:45 PM

I respect Hitchens as an intellectual, but D'Souza owned the shit out of him in this debate. And it was nice to see Hitchens when he didn't appear to be half in the bag.

11/2/2007 7:32:57 AM

What does that even mean?

11/2/2007 8:12:14 AM

I am absolutely glued.... D'Souza is an amazing debater and I really think he has the upper hand through the first 4. Going to 5.

11/2/2007 9:19:49 AM

you might say he's a master debater

LOLOLOOL


sorry

11/2/2007 9:47:51 AM

^^ Yeah, as I indicated, I have a lot of respect for Hitchens as a thinker, but D'Souza destroyed him throughout the debate. And the debate reminded me that Hitchens is an antitheist just like some here.

11/2/2007 10:36:42 AM

You're saying that like it's a bad thing.

11/2/2007 10:41:27 AM

Quote :

"I have a lot of respect for Hitchens as a thinker"

The guy's in the running for biggest douche in the world.

11/2/2007 11:17:35 AM

^^ What, being an antitheist? Yes, I think it is.

It's one thing to be agnostic or ignostic or even atheist, but actively working in opposition to God or theism is something that I simply don't care for. Others certainly have a right to be antitheists, but I also have a right to express my disapproval of their beliefs, and I am exercising that right at this time.

^ And just think: If you were more widely known, you'd be right in the running with him.

[Edited on November 2, 2007 at 11:26 AM. Reason : .]

11/2/2007 11:25:26 AM

I definitely understand why you like his personality.

[Edited on November 2, 2007 at 11:28 AM. Reason : .]

11/2/2007 11:27:34 AM

^ I never indicated anything of the sort. Twist my words some more--it makes you look so intelligent.

11/2/2007 11:34:40 AM

I can also see why you like him as a thinker.

11/2/2007 11:42:09 AM

Quote :

"It's one thing to be agnostic or ignostic or even atheist, but actively working in opposition to God or theism is something that I simply don't care for. Others certainly have a right to be antitheists, but I also have a right to express my disapproval of their beliefs, and I am exercising that right at this time."

I don't know. If I knew that there was an alarming percentage of the population that believed in things that were absolutely not true, and that they used this belief to guide their decisions, and that these people controlled most of the power in the world, why wouldn't I want to work against what they believe in?

11/2/2007 11:45:22 AM

I don't believe in unicorns. But I don't live my daily life trying to discount them. I simply live with the knowledge that unicorns don't exist. Who cares if someone else believes in unicorns?

11/2/2007 12:20:11 PM

^^ I'm more alarmed by the actions of atheists with power... See: Mao, Hitler, Stalin.

They've killed over 100,000,000 people in the name of atheism.

11/2/2007 12:22:42 PM

I watched the second segment with D'Souza's talk, and while he did make 2 good points, most of his arguments were fundamentally flawed.

11/2/2007 12:24:22 PM

watch all 10. It was great, no matter on which side you're on.

11/2/2007 12:26:46 PM

^^ Anybody that says D'Souza didn't kill in that debate is in denial.

11/2/2007 12:29:02 PM

^ that along with the fact that faith is inherently difficult to defend.

11/2/2007 12:30:25 PM

I just watched Hitchen's section, and he made some good points too, but is the opposite extreme of D'souza.

He was far too smug making it easy to want to ignore his points, then he chases that with an extremist untenable view.

I really don't know if I could get through all 10 segments. I've heard those arguments thousands of times here, and D'Souza starting out his argument with several blatantly untrue revisions of history doesn't really make me want listen to the rest of what he has to say.

^^ I'm not making a judgement of who won, because I've only watched the first 3 segments. But from what i've watched, it's not worth watching. I'd read a transcript though if you know of where one can be found.

[Edited on November 2, 2007 at 12:33 PM. Reason : ]

11/2/2007 12:32:01 PM

you're crazy dude. Why don't you listen to what he has to say? If he's false, then he's easy to refute... right? that should embolden your own stance.

11/2/2007 12:50:43 PM

^ Huh? He IS easy to refute. I'm just don't feel like typing out all the arguments just to point out what would be obvious if you viewed both sides with a skeptic's perspective. That's why I asked for a transcript.

11/2/2007 12:54:20 PM

^ You must be smarter than Hitchens because Hitchens sure couldn't keep up with him.

11/2/2007 12:57:28 PM

^ I think he kept up pretty well. I don't think either one did a spectacular job. I'm only on the fifth segment now though.

11/2/2007 1:01:13 PM

D'Souza did a bunch ad hominen shit including the Mother Teresa anecdote. Hitchens was right to gag at that one.

11/2/2007 1:03:55 PM

I agree that D'Souza pulled an awful lot of cheap shots during the debate, but his underlying argument was better, I thought.

D'Souza did a pretty good job at refuting the notion that Christianity is the root of all evil, while Hitchen's main argument was that he found the philosophy of Christianity to be extremely unpalatable.

The problem with Hitchens and the like talking about how unpalatable Christianity is, is that it becomes very clear that they have very little first hand knowledge of the subject. They quickly sound like the noob who hops into TSB and starts a trite diatribe against one party or the other without any real understanding of the other side.

11/2/2007 1:09:54 PM

^^ Out of the entire debate you focus on that? How disingenuous.

^ Or he or she sounds like an antitheist, which Hitchens is.

[Edited on November 2, 2007 at 1:16 PM. Reason : .]

11/2/2007 1:11:04 PM

Quote :

"that?"

?

11/2/2007 1:12:38 PM

Quote :

"The problem with Hitchens and the like talking about how unpalatable Christianity is, is that it becomes very clear that they have very little first hand knowledge of the subject. They quickly sound like the noob who hops into TSB and starts a trite diatribe against one party or the other without any real understanding of the other side. "

D'Souza was far more eloquent on this topic, true. But his arguments were still clearly flawed.

For example, on the section when they're talking about religious rulers who caused atrocities, or whatever, D'Souza conveniently says "oh christians only did the Inquisition and the Crusades" and then says "hey look at all this stuff non-religious people did." But, then right at the beginning of the debate, D'Souza claims that Christianity is inherently better than anything else, because the west as "christian nations" flocked to help people after the tsunami. So if actions of our country represent Christianity when we're doing good things, why, from D'Souza's perspective, don't the bad things we do represent Christianity? Why not count the millions of people killed between nuking Japan and the atrocities of the Vietnam war? Why not look at slavery or the genocide of the native Americans?

So far, almost half of the debate is on this issue, and Hitchens would have undermined a lot of D'souza's arguments to point on this dissonance in his beliefs.

Quote :

"D'Souza did a pretty good job at refuting the notion that Christianity is the root of all evil, while Hitchen's main argument was that he found the philosophy of Christianity to be extremely unpalatable. "

D'Souza wasn't merely refuting the claim that religion is not inherently evil, he was also asserting that it was inherently good. He explicitly made this assertion in his opening statement, and used flawed historical knowledge to support it.

11/2/2007 1:19:14 PM

The rabbit argument was pretty lame as well for the case of evolution being fundamentally flawed since rabbits can not interpret messages and as a result don't need to sacrifice themselves for the greater good of the message.

11/2/2007 1:26:42 PM

Quote :

"So if actions of our country represent Christianity when we're doing good things, why, from D'Souza's perspective, don't the bad things we do represent Christianity?"

What you're saying is very true. The thing is, Hitchens doesn't want to give each side full credit for all its actions, either. He seems very ok with only giving Christianity credit for the bad things its done and atheism credit for the good it's accomplished; anything good done by Christian societies would have been done regardless, while only the bad stuff is a result of religion.

D'Souza called out Hitchens for this. While I agree that it's slightly hypocritical, I think the balance is in D'Souza's favor when it comes to history.

Quote :

"and used flawed historical knowledge to support it."

Incomplete, sure, but flawed?

11/2/2007 1:35:25 PM

Quote :

"I'm more alarmed by the actions of atheists with power... See: Mao, Hitler, Stalin. They've killed over 100,000,000 people in the name of atheism."

You might actually have a point if they did in face kill in the name of atheism. but they didn't and you know they didn't. you just wanted to make the classic talking point win, but failed.

11/2/2007 1:47:14 PM

Quote :

"The thing is, Hitchens doesn't want to give each side full credit for all its actions, either. He seems very ok with only giving Christianity credit for the bad things its done and atheism credit for the good it's accomplished; anything good done by Christian societies would have been done regardless, while only the bad stuff is a result of religion. "

I don't see why Hitchens or any atheist should have to account for people who are only implicitly atheists or agnostics. The fact that the atheistic villians were non religious wasn't a core aspect of their platform, for the most part. It's not a cohesive belief that earns camaraderie.

Theoretically, people of the same religion should get along though. The fact that they don't, and religious leaders aren't unified in this way, is a sign that religion is not innately special. But, from the philosophical perspective that these guys are arguing from, this can be used to impugn the pro-religion side of the argument.

However, this does go both ways. The fact that certain religious people do bad things doesn't have any bearing on other religious people either (unless they happen to agree with the person on a religious basis). People still live their lives the way they want, and take lessons from wherever they want. Had D'souza pointed this out, he would have undermined himself. Had Hitchens pointed this out, he likewise would have undermined himself.

11/2/2007 1:52:14 PM

^^Well the point of that argument is rooted in the fact that atheists are always more than happy to attribute all the negative actions of a religious society on that nation's religion.

Also, D'Souza was right to point out that the revolutions in Russia and China were very much actively atheistic.

It's no less fair than attributing the Crusades to religion.

[Edited on November 2, 2007 at 1:52 PM. Reason : .]

11/2/2007 1:52:27 PM

I've just started listening to it. I doubt I can take much more. The Greeks and Romans were jerks, but all Christian societies get a pass until modern times? That's ridiculous.

11/2/2007 1:58:57 PM

Quote :

"You might actually have a point if they did in face kill in the name of atheism. but they didn't and you know they didn't. you just wanted to make the classic talking point win, but failed."

They did it as a part of the society they were creating. They destroyed religions, forbade them from being practiced. It was a dogmatic approach to the annihilation of religion and other certain items in society. The case CAN be made that Mao/Stalin/Hitler killed in the name of their dogma, which a big piece was the disdain of religion.

11/2/2007 2:08:42 PM

Quote :

"It was a dogmatic approach to the annihilation of religion and other certain items in society. The case CAN be made that Mao/Stalin/Hitler killed in the name of their dogma, which a big piece was the disdain of religion."

I wouldn't say it was dogmatic, as much as it was pragmatic to their purported goals. Why didn't those particular leaders want particular religions?

The 2 main reasons were they didn't want the populace arguing with each other, and they don't want them holding any being to be above the gov., to cause them to question the gov.

But, these regimes ultimately failed, and not for reasons of religion, it was for reasons of politics/power. Politics is a lot like religion, but is more dynamic, and is not bound to be stagnant.

11/2/2007 2:14:31 PM

^ Yes, and holding themselves, the government, above everything else in their society WAS the problem. They crushed those things which had the potential to be as important in the day-to-day lives of its citizens as the government was. For this reason, they crushed religion and killed a hell of a lot of people dogmatically chasing their goal.

11/2/2007 2:18:29 PM

^ That's true, but that would happen if any one single group held all the power, whether that group was religious or not. Just look at Bin Laden and his gang, or most muslim governments, where the religion IS the law. Or the medieval era gov. of Europe. One of the reasons that modern western civilizations haven't devolved in to this mess is specifically because our govs. put provisions to prevent religion from gaining more power in government.

And as the US continues to grow and develop, religion becomes more watered down and marginalized.

I also think it's interesting that one thing D'souza kept using as evidence that human morality must have been divinely inspired and couldn't have evolved was the idea that we should have compassion and put others before ourselves, which was something that Jesus brought to humanity. Realistically, especially recently, this has been pretty far from modern American politics. How can anyone argue that current Conservatively ideology embraces this idea of self-sacrifice and compassion? It seems if people really agreed with D'souza they would have to disagree with the way Americans and our Gov. does things.

11/2/2007 2:31:26 PM

^He's not really referring to more complex moral issues such as hypocrisy and most of the asshole-ish things that much of the far Christian right does... Those sorts of things aren't even an issue with the religion itself, it's an issue with people ignoring the intent of their religion for personal gain. I think he was more or less referring to base ideas such as the concept that murder and theft are wrong. Animals seem to have little problems with killing others (even of their own species) and robbing other creatures of their food/territory. Thusly, in a world where humanity was formed purely from evolution, it's a bit odd to imagine how these basic ideals would have formed... as opposed to this, a God-directed formation of humanity (evolution or no evolution) would have formed these basic moral principles.

Not saying I agree with either side, really, but this is just the way I saw this particular part of the argument.

11/2/2007 2:39:58 PM

Quote :

"They did it as a part of the society they were creating. They destroyed religions, forbade them from being practiced. It was a dogmatic approach to the annihilation of religion and other certain items in society. The case CAN be made that Mao/Stalin/Hitler killed in the name of their dogma, which a big piece was the disdain of religion."

Really? Are you really going to stick by that assertion? To even remotely argue that Hitler's regime possessed a disdain for religion is to be lying through your teeth. It did possess disdain for certain religions, but not all religions. National Socialism was premised upon the German identity and a huge part of that identity was religion, either protestant or catholic and Nazi Germany found its greatest allies with Roman Catholic nations (Italy, Croatia, Poland, etc.)

Furthermore, Mao and Stalin didn't go about their killings as a means of annihilating religion. It was to destroy any and all opposition. Atheists and others were killed right along with highly religious people. Likewise, Stalin was capable of developing his cult of personality as a replacement for religion by the hold that Statist religion had created throughout the Soviet Socialist Republics.

11/2/2007 2:40:24 PM

Quote :

"Those sorts of things aren't even an issue with the religion itself, it's an issue with people ignoring the intent of their religion for personal gain. I think he was more or less referring to base ideas such as the concept that murder and theft are wrong. Animals seem to have little problems with killing others (even of their own species) and robbing other creatures of their food/territory. Thusly, in a world where humanity was formed purely from evolution, it's a bit odd to imagine how these basic ideals would have formed... as opposed to this, a God-directed formation of humanity (evolution or no evolution) would have formed these basic moral principles."

That's exactly the point. Also, the concept of those things you mentioned demonstrably existed before Christianity of Judaism. Many Christian principles go back to pagan beliefs, which probably come from something that preexisted them.

Also, D'Souza WAS arguing that our society itself was better because we are Christian. But as you have pointed out, through all levels of society, the things supposedly irradicated by religion still exist. D'souza should have realized this by now, that it's not the religion, its humanity. As humans we cling to our environment, and it's mostly irrelevant whether that environment is religious or not. It just depends on the values in that environment, and values can exist independently of religion. If this wasn't the case, then Christians would be demonstrably more moral than other groups.

11/2/2007 2:46:32 PM

I for one have never really seen the basis behind the "religion has created past atrocities" arguement, anyway... at least not when referring to Christianity, I don't know what other religions have to say in regards to the idea of "holy war". In the example of the Crusades, the people involved were not following the religion at all, it was simply powerful individuals lying to the populace about the religion that they were all forced to follow in the first place. Christianity does not preach the slaying of other religions, and does not preach the idea that any government should force a religion on the people. This is only done by people wishing to gain power by using Christianity as a face.

So, really, that entire segment of the debate was basically "meh" to me, anyway. They were debating a null issue.

11/2/2007 2:48:44 PM

Quote :

"Many Christian principles go back to pagan beliefs, which probably come from something that preexisted them."

Well, pagan beliefs are religion, and generally follow the concept of a God-formed world, even if they aren't the major modern religions.

Quote :

"D'souza should have realized this by now, that it's not the religion, its humanity. As humans we cling to our environment, and it's mostly irrelevant whether that environment is religious or not. It just depends on the values in that environment, and values can exist independently of religion."

You'd be surprised how in-line this actually is with Christian philosophy. Humanity fails by clinging to worldly beliefs and idols, and that sort of thing. Basically, sinners (read: people) are going to sin if they are in the world, whether or not they have religion. The difference is that a Christian should be trying not to sin, and wishing for forgiveness from God when they do... that said, I think a large population of conservative bigots claiming to be Christians are actually not.

[Edited on November 2, 2007 at 2:56 PM. Reason : .]

11/2/2007 2:53:51 PM

Quote :

"Christianity does not preach the slaying of other religions, and does not preach the idea that any government should force a religion on the people. "

That's not really true. There are conflicting parts, but you can definitely interpret certain sections to mean that one should militantly bring Christianity to the masses.

That's really the problem with religions of that sort, is that it's so vague, a religious leader can run rampant with power, under the guise of religion.

That is pretty much the main reason that religions should be kept close watch on, and why D'souza is wrong to claim religion is inherently good. Sure, it can be used to make certain people behave better, but it can, and often is, used to misguide people. The most recent debacle is the whole evolution thing, where that school system tried to get the scientific process marginalized in the face of religion.

11/2/2007 2:54:35 PM

Quote :

"That's not really true. There are conflicting parts, but you can definitely interpret certain sections to mean that one should militantly bring Christianity to the masses."

Exactly... and it can just as easily be interpreted the opposite way.
Note also that, generally, contradictions within the Bible occur between the old and new testaments. This is important because within the new testament, Jesus preaches the idea that the older Jewish laws need no longer apply (to paraphrase heavily).

Quote :

"That is pretty much the main reason that religions should be kept close watch on, and why D'souza is wrong to claim religion is inherently good. Sure, it can be used to make certain people behave better, but it can, and often is, used to misguide people. The most recent debacle is the whole evolution thing, where that school system tried to get the scientific process marginalized in the face of religion."

I would say instead that people claiming to be acting by the will of God should be kept close watch on. You make a good point here, but the question in this case is not really whether or not religion is inherently good... it is whether or not something can be inherently good and still be used for evil purposes. If an evil person uses a good thing for an evil purpose, does that remove the good of the item used?

If you like analogies:
Chairs are inherently good because they give us a comfortable place to sit. They provide a great service to the human race. If someone beats someone else with a chair in a bar fight, does that mean that chairs in general are no longer good things?

11/2/2007 3:05:47 PM

Interesting related article about the "new-Athiests":
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_4_oh_to_be.html

11/2/2007 3:20:40 PM

Quote :

"^^ I'm more alarmed by the actions of atheists with power... See: Mao, Hitler, Stalin. They've killed over 100,000,000 people in the name of atheism."

Godwin's law wins again, eh?


Let's not forget Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, Thirty Years War, Islamic Jihad

Oh, and I'll also paraphrase what Richard Dawkins said when someone mentioned Hitler and Stalin:

Quote :

"Both of those men had mustaches, but we don't go around assuming that all people with mustaches are mass murderers"

Meaning, you can't say that because both people A have similarity B, that B is the cause of C. Especially when all atheists aren't mass murderers.

Add to that the reason Hitler had his ideology was not due to his hatred of religion, rather his idea that he wanted to create a perfect, master race. One nation of pure people. Is that much different from Evangelicals and their goal of creating a Christian nation?

11/2/2007 3:25:26 PM

^Actually, it is. The evangelical idea is additive (they attempt to convert others to their religion), as opposed to the "pure society" idea, which removes people from society if they do no meet the ideal standards. In a way, they're complete opposites.

Anyway, I think this thread is going to end up with the conclusion that people in general, regardless of religion, are assholes who will kill one another in an effort to gain power.

11/2/2007 3:34:44 PM