David Wolpe and Christopher Hitchens: The Great God Debate (7/9)

[StickInMudd]

The answer the rabbi gives for the mans question in the middle is completely incorrect. Modern jews would not come to the conclusion of genital mutilation of children if someone wasn't telling them that it was god's will from over 3 thousand years ago. If there was no holy text to refer to then there wouldn't be a religion. There's also some good parts about how to cure leprosy in the OT that simply DO NOT work. They have come to that conclusion with modern medicine despite their religion.

[primativemodelling]

THE HITCH ROOLZ OK !!!!!

[thesearewarningsigns]

5:18 the question that is the end all, be all destruction of all arguments in favor of religion. 

[Hume77]

These stock references to the alleged difference in charitable giving establish nothing for a variety of reasons. Countries which can be described as secular and perhaps atheist such as most of Scandinavia and Australia give far more to the poor in other countries and tolerate far less poverty and economic inequality than does the U.S. where most of those opposed to universal health care are conservatives and most evangelicals.

[Hume77]

Religious people like to invoke Francis Collins and the very small number of prominent scientists who believe in God's existence without noting that these people are a very small minority greatly outnumbered by their colleagues and when one looks at their arguments on religion they are remarkably unsophisticated when compared with philosophers regardless of their religious beliefs.

[cygnusfloyd]

Wolpe is Michael Scott.

[smokyp3nguin]

Wolpe has an incredibly short attention span.

[somewhatd]

"Don't applaud that!"

*Crowd applauds even more*

[swordmaidenz]

Wolpe is pretty sexy for a Rabbi. Still talks crap though.

[TomFynn]

Mr Wolpe? Could you please not FUCKING SHOUT ALL THE FUCKING TIME?

[suzushirou]

@TomFynn I have to turn down my speakers when he speaks and turn them back up when Hitchens speaks (which makes Wolpe's yelling over Hitchens even more annoying...)

[Twinroads]

Hm, philosophy does bow to science when science comes up with the evidence. A field of study will often start with philosophy (ex. philosophy of mind) and, when we figure out an empirical method, it becomes a science (cognitive science, neuroscience, etc.). As a philosophy major, it really bothers me when people, in this case Wolpe, throws out the term 'philosophy' in the same breath as theology.

'Theology' is glorified literary analysis, nothing more. Let's stop glorifying it.

[flowerapist]

Wolpe is a fucking idiot. Correlation does not imply causation. But beside the point, the largest charity contributions do NOT come from Theists or Theist organizations. Is quantity better than quality? No it is fucking not.

[tdhtv]

I used to be a Christian, and now that I'm an Atheist I've devoted a great deal more of my time to charity. In fact the very reason I stopped believing in god was because I found the Bible to be immoral, and obscenities on that level could have only been made up by man.

[SINTAXFREE]

Wolpe sells nonsense but he sell it well whereas, Hitchons sells truth but does it poorly. Also, the debator should not take a position either way yet, he is an admitted atheist. It's unfortunate because there are much better arguments that Hitchons failed to bring up.

[echalko]

Funny how religion wants to take credit for all of the good, yet doesn't want to take ANY credit for all of the bad, because they 'weren't truly religious people'. They let God (whichever one that may be) get away with it as well. Hypocrisy abounds within the deluded mind, and no intellectual hammer can crack that mental chastity belt.

[phishyct]

Wolpe is FULL OF SHIT. Religious people watch LESS tv, drink less? WTF? I live in the Fucking bible belt, and frankly what people do during the week is not what they do on Sunday. IT IS HORSESHIT. Hypocrisy anyone?

[DNRvideos]

religious people give more to charity? could it be that they are more easily manipulated and told what to do? hmmmmm. clearly religion demands offerings to propigate their self serving declarations of knowledge of human destiny.

[TheFish333333]

Wolpe contends that religious people do greater works of good than they would if they were non-religious. What nonsense! How much of the charity money they raise goes into the self serving idea of "converting" the people they are trying to save and producing pamphlets of how they musn't use Condoms etc (catholic church). I imagine these good people giving to charities would raise just as much without it being under the banner of God - only without the outlay of expensive conversion programmes!

[Kapteinar]

Why would someone even bother to interrupt Hitchens?

You know he's going to finish what he started one way or the other.

[Divinezoo]

Religions feel good, just like fairy tales do. The whole huge imposing dicatation of authority is outdated, de-evolutionary, and a serious disadvantage...take Muslim Radicals, who in desperation turn to suicide bombers...much like the Japanese, confronted with greater techological tools as born in the pondering on the true nature of the universe.

[lukeism2]

When I was younger, I always felt like I was a boy trapped in a woman's body... Thankfully, all that changed when I was born.

[BrannonMcConkey]

If science can stake no claim on metaphysics (and how could it the way Wolpe describes?), then any figment of the imagination can run amok. My statement that an invisible dragon lives in my garage cannot be refuted. Wolpe can stand with that argument but there would be no way he could argue any position I took on ANY other *real* entity that was undetectable. I would postulate that he would not be comfortable with that position - so therefore he has a problem with which to contend.

[BrannonMcConkey]

Wolpe often takes an interesting stance that theists use to wiggle into this safe metaphysical territory. Wolpe doesn't make an illogical point here, and I DO see what he is saying. You can't argue with the validity of the direct statement. However, what we seem to be left with is this incorporeal entity that exists outside of space with no commensurate parameters of evidence that somehow affects spatio-temporality. What od fairies and unicorns as well? Sagan's dragon in the garage?

[Kan2209]

I think it was Dawkins who was discussing the difficulty of organizing a non beliving charity, due to regulations, where as religious organizations just walk through the jungle beaurocracy.

[thetwentyteens]

I have a cheap computer.  Nothing fancy. I use it primarily to hang out on Youtube and for my iTunes account. I'm not much into technology.

And the good Rabbi is wearing all black. So all I see is a head debating Christopher Hitchens. Very funny it is.

[lukeism2]

@thetwentyteens he's naked, just a really awesome tan on his buff physique

[CertainUncertainty]

2:14 Love that audience.

[netskot]

i don't agree with Rabbi Wolpe but compared to Boteach, he's much more enjoyable.

[lifeemusicelife]

@netskot no kidding... I also think that Hitchens was a bit less aggressive in this one... He completely destroyed Boteach... maybe Hitchens has a bit more respect for Wolpe

[mrbluesky323]

I like this Wolpe guy. He seems right on a number of points.

[jerzy862]

David Wolpe is so pompous

[GuBB3rGuN]

They should have let that old guy respond to the rabbi.

[mystisme]

because religion have social utility it does not make god true all religion do is giving guide line how to live our life,individually and in a group

[AxekickerDotCom]

I love how miserable Hitches always is. Doesn't matter where he is or what he's doing. Miserable. I'm that miserable, too. It's comfortable to be miserable.

[xSolraccarloSx]

@AxekickerDotCom Hmmmmmmm... Yes of course it is. But that's a very glass half-empty perspective isn't it? 'It's miserable to be comfortable' has the same amount of meaning and validity.

[wokkitout]

if god can't be proven scientifically... that means anything is up for grabs right? 

[TheAteapotist]

what Wolpe says about believers being more charitable simply isn't true. I challenge Wolpe to match the contribution that Bill Gates and Warren Buffet just organized last week. 40 billionaires, including Gates and Buffet, giving away 50% of their money to charity. 50%.

I don't think any religious organization can match that.

Oh, by the way, the American Red Cross is not a religious organization either.

[whyabadi]

I think the only moral absolute is the desire to be moral. Everything else is subjective and relative.

[iliamm]

Hitchens looks sooooooo bored lol

[guyverdio]

why is there more religious formed charities? Because the religious population of any kind combined is greater then non-religious population of any kind combined at any point in time. More people = greater chances that one person out of so many will decide to create a charity. Now that the non-religious population is growing, you'll expect to see more non-religious formed charities pop up. DUH

[xspettacolare]

with out religious guilt ie sex is a sin ;sex is dirty ,sex before marriage is a sin, more women would have a much easier time having orgasms Religion brain washed so many women & also to mention what about all that premature ejaculation & circumcision which effected men on a deep, & psychological level which has done alot of damage! faith based women tend to have less orgasms then non faith women! it's hard to cum when one is feeling guilt

eastern faiths tend to promote healthy sex!

[Poalee]

what an easy question, I like what Hitchens has to say but the guy who violently agrees with him had a lame question. So we evolved and this guys argument is if no one ever told you about God would you figure Him or It out. Did this guy hear himself. One time we were monkeys someone figured it out and didn't read about it or hear about it. I ask how did monkeys get faith? By the way I'm not for religious dogma.

[adlerbr12]

Wolpe is wrong , look at the bums in the streets 99 % of them are waiting for good to help them.

Give a man a fish you will feed him for a day .

Teach a man to fish you will feed him for a life time .

Give a man religion and the man will STARVE TO DEATH waiting for god to give him a fish.

[TheDerekdub]

Nice to see the friendly side at 2:17

[AestusL4]

philanthropy.iupui.edu/Researc­h/giving_fundraising_research.­aspx#charitablebequests

This is the link where I got the quote. If you look into other surveys you will find that the dollar amounts given for 'religious' motivation was higher then any other, but you also learn that most of this is given to churches and religious promotion.

[AestusL4]

I hate the charity argument! Just because there are more people who donate that claim religious affiliation that don'l claim affiliation does not mean that religion is the cause of charitable actions! Though it seems like a logical assumption to make it turns out it's not the case. "Donors with a charitable bequest cited their sense of responsibility to help those with less as their strongest motivation for their charitable giving." Religious beliefs is 2nd to a sense of humanitarianism.

[lukeism2]

the artful dodger... he couldn't answer it

[Kristophirst]

Michael Savage is a piece of shit.

[xCREATORxDESTROYERx]

Hitchens is the man.

[rudenoodle]

Who so rude to the guy in the audience?

"Is this a debate?" Wolpe sneered

Well to answer your question, yes it is, just evidence that Wolpe will take any chance given to him to dodge a question that he is uncomfortable with.

[IMMUNEHUMAN]

It's so awesome the audience just applauds Hitchens louder.

[pilottheshaker]

I'll applaud that. FUCK YOU Wolpe.

[BlueNile123]

It has social utility...blah blah blah. "What has this got to do with the existence of god or the validity of religious claims? It has nothing to with it." Religion is a false construct with some benefits. It does not make it less false. Dagger ==>

[DruidB19]

Wolpe is a complete moron.... The largest contributors to chairity are Atheists...

Gates.. Buffet.. ????

[smartwarlord]

@DruidB19

Yeah you can mention two atheists. I can mention three theists of the same caliber.

Carlos Slim (Maronite Catholic)

Mukesh Ambani and Lakshmi Mittal (both Hindus).

[Lesardah]

@DruidB19 And now even Zuckerberg, another atheist donating his fortune, and without proselytizing .

[treasuredroperX]

@DruidB19 He's a cool guy though you gotta admit.

[blackjacki2]

@DruidB19 I'm an atheist, but lol if you think a handful of billionaires giving a large amount of money is a large enough sample size to prove your point.. That's just basic statistics..

[cossidae85]

@DruidB19 Bill Gates has never claimed to be an atheist nor is there any source material that can demonstrate (with evidence) that he is. He has expressed having a disinterest in Christianity, but that's it. At most, I would classify him as agnostic.

[writersblock26]

@DruidB19 You forgot to mention Mark Zuckerberg. Although he is not yet a top philanthropist, he most likely will be one some day.

[EclosionProductions]

@DruidB19 i thought they were agnostic? I can see them being the largest individual contributors but I wouldn't think charity organizations secular or not could be out done by one or two dudes. Then again they are two extremely rich dudes.

[MvNPTI]

The moderator should stfu, and Wolpe needs to not tell the audience what to applaud to and not to applaud to, as Hitchens has not, and has been interestingly patient throughout the whole debate, despite Wolpe's constant interruption(while telling Hitchens not to interrupt him) and the moderator's intermittent utterings.

[crackingskulls]

Worst moderator ever.

[andyx1205]

Who are the two biggest philanthropists in the world?

Bill Gates and Warren Buffett.

Are they religious?

No, they're moreso agnostic or atheist, they are anything but religious.

[dirtyproduction]

@andyx1205 You're speaking solely of money and not of acts. You've missed a great point in the debate, undoubtedly I conclude that you've missed a great deal in life.

You a member of the feeble masses, and I couldn't give a good fuck about Christianity and the like...

[Fjord87]

this problem is crucial in the atheism vs religion argument. atheism claims to b a result of independent thought to a degree that religions arent. to prove this, atheism needs to be able to produce a community of people who can live up to the standard of intellectual atheism and NOT fall into religious atheism. otherwise atheism is just as blind as religion: most religions advocate independent thought but their followers do not live up to this. to be credible, atheism has to do better than this.

[fizzkick]

@Fjord87 YES

[h1yaaaguy]

@Fjord87

I see your point, but this almost comes off as the argument that the religious make against atheists; saying that it's becoming a religion itself. However, in order to create real social and systemic changes the message needs to be clear and perpetual. Atheists argue strongly for their viewpoints because thats the only way that the message will ever spread through the masses. I don't believe that the characteristics you are seeing in atheists are necessarily what define religion.

[Fjord87]

@h1yaaaguy i agree that the characteristics im seeing in atheists are not what define religion.. instead they're a very profound quality in human character: wanting to follow the group and do what is seen as acceptable. and it is not necessarily wrong in itself, but it is something that has become a source of fanaticism in pretty much all ideologies.

[Fjord87]

@h1yaaaguy im just saying if atheism wants to raise above this, it has to build a community of independent believers. there is nothing wrong in organization, strong argument or becoming religious-ish in some other ways.

[Fjord87]

but moreover, the critique fizzkick made is not just randomly against those people.. i think he was saying something more about whats wrong with being that kind of a groupie:

because it is that very kind of belief (blind, adoring faith in one person) that Hitchens himself dismisses, discourages and is against. its actually profoundly hypocritical to claim to agree with everything Hitchens says and then be his blind follower.

[Fjord87]

if i understood correct fizzkicks first argument, he isn't saying that everyone who agrees with Hitchins is just a blind groupie believer. his statement is only critical to THOSE Hitchens fans who post ridiculous comments defending everything he says or does and failing to see any hint of logic in anyone elses arguments, even though Hitchens himself acknowledges the logic in some things his opponents say, although he doesn't agree with them.

[LogicSpeaks]

Bullshit about religious people giving more and religious people use less drugs etc. A good example is our religious school here in Lincoln NE (Pious X I believe its called) which is a private school of course. When statistics were done a few years ago they had the most teen pregnancies out of all schools, most drug use, most abortions... sounds like Mr. Wolpe is full of shit.

[elmenhorster]

David Wolpe forgets one of the biggest charity group and I don't know why -- The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. It is solely secular with no hints of religions..

[elmenhorster]

David Wolpe forgets one of the biggest charity group and I don't know why -- The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. It is solely secular with no hints of religions..

[GreedySpeculator]

Who says that charity is moral to begin with? It seems like the goodness of giving to the poor is assumed as axiomatic by both sides.

[GreedySpeculator]

Who says that charity is moral to begin with? It seems like the goodness of giving to the poor is assumed as axiomatic by both sides.

[GreedySpeculator]

It seems like the goodness of giving to the poor is assumed as axiomatic by both sides.

[GreedySpeculator]

It seems like the goodness of giving to the poor is assumed as axiomatic by both sides.

[IcyIconoclast]

WOLPE! IGNORANCE.

Of course it's no surprise that christian charities are so prevalent, as well as muslim ones, etc...

that's because the world is primarily religious.

all hitchens is saying is that once you kick that crutch, the body of generosity and solidarity doesn't fall.

solidarity, a socialist/communist/mostly atheistic term is simply a synonym for international brotherhood or some other outmoded, religiously-rooted one.

[fizzkick]

Hitchens groupies are religious in their adoration and blind agreement with everything he says. They flock to whichever venue he happens to be debating cant resist typing blind praise under every Hitchens youtube clip. Here's a quick test: if you cannot concieve of a possible scenario where someone opposing Hitchens may actually raise a valid point you're as dumb as any religious nut. Hitchens himself would distance himself from you as he is an advocate for CRITICAL THOUGHT(learn what it means)

[DailyHitchens]

@fizzkick I disagree. If the people who watch these debates and lectures aren't critical thinkers, then who are? Hitchens gets in fact quite a lot criticism. The occasional "Hitchens rocks" or "Go Hitchens" doesn't mean the commentator agree with him 100%. What you are saying is, if you post a supporting comment, you can't think for yourself.

[fizzkick]

@DailyHitchens I wasnt saying that anyone supporting Hitchens doesnt think for themselves.Clearly there is bound to be a contingent of Hitchens fans who are intelligent and discerning,exactly why I provided the quick test as a means to dicipher the idiots Im speaking about from the intelligent ones.Watching a video like this does in no way make you a critical thinker,the people im speaking about applaud Hitchens when he sneezes,in their minds noone opposing him can present insightful arguments.

[mbeck1986]

@DailyHitchens Agreed.

[cfibb]

@DailyHitchens

Totally. Though I might not agree with CH 100% on everything, like others who weigh in with an occasional "Hitchens rocks" or "Go Hitchens" I find his arguments regarding religion compelling because they give (eloquent) voice to things I have long felt.

[cfibb]

God groupies are OFTEN religious(!) in their adoration and blind agreement with everything other believers say. And this has shaped most of human history. This I know from having lived a life with eyes open. We are all alive today, in the slow crawl of history and some of us will always be gladly pulling ourselves away from the tendency to wish-think.

[tenley1234]

this Wolpe guy is like a child

[DutchLiam84]

@DailyHitchens I agree, it's not a coincidence that more then half the world is religious but the atheist community on youtube is way bigger then the religious one. Lots of Christians, Jews or Muslims etc. on youtube censor their channel, that's not without reason! The truth hurts!

[TheToosy]

@DailyHitchens Chris Hitchens is not as smart as you make him to be. He intimidate is opponents because most of the unthinkers are on his side.

[Nosy1993]

@fizzkick When I first began listening to Hitchens, I saw him as an enemy, but I was a critical thinker and wished to hear more. Fortunately, it was critical thinking that led me to lose my faith (which is a very, very good thing). I do not treat him as a deity at all, I just realized that he has rationalism on his side most of the time.

[fizzkick]

@Nosy1993 If you simply agree with Hitchens and enjoy his line of argument thats fine, in which case my comments about 'Hitchens groupies' were certainly not directed at you. Im referring to certain fans who attribute Hitchens rational arguments with infallibility, Wolpe on numerous occasions presents some intelligent rebuttals and he does not deserve the sneering and ''LMFAO owned'' of the blind Hitchens fundamentalist who don't see the irony of their own devotion.

[h1yaaaguy]

@fizzkick

Your argument is very ironic. I enjoy it, but hope that it was merely for comical purposes.

Do you get it?

[fizzkick]

@h1yaaaguy believe me Im not one to engage in making wisecracks on youtube but your misreading of my simple comment is the only thing you should be laughing at.I'll make it alot more simple by first stating that your assumption that I disagree with Hitchens outright is incorrect (ever heard of assumption being the mother of ignorance?) I was simply stating its ironic that some can be against blind followers of religion but yet be blind followers of one man's thoughts. Simple really.

[h1yaaaguy]

@fizzkick

Please point out where I assumed you disagreed with Hitchens. Your argument is ironic in its own blind assumption in which people who agree with him on message boards with a simple quip must be "blindly following" him. Surely there are other explanations.

Additionally, your argument of blindly following Hitchens with an ironic "devotion" is also ridiculous. When one has science on his side, there's no reason to resort to devotion. Your attempted intellectualism is tiring.

[h1yaaaguy]

@fizzkick

Please point out where I assumed you disagreed with Hitchens. Your argument is ironic in its own blind assumption in which people who agree with him on message boards with a simple quip must be "blindly following" him. Surely there are other explanations.

Additionally, your argument of blindly following Hitchens with an ironic "devotion" is also ridiculous. When one has science on his side, there's no reason to resort to devotion. Your attempted intellectualism is tiring.

[fizzkick]

@h1yaaaguy I don't think you're cut out for this. You're probably very young so I won't insult you but this is clearly beyond you. Intelligent people have read and understood my post so I need not waste both our time explaining it to you again here plus I wouldn't want to 'tire you' out in your efforts to understand again.

[h1yaaaguy]

@fizzkick

I understand your post entirely. Is there some reason why I can't find it ironic but also understand it?

Anyway, I hear what you are saying. Frankly, I don't care about this conversation.

[JKalaster]

@fizzkick I think you raise a somewhat legitimate point.

For the sake of argument, I'll pretend that Hitchens followers are as blindly faithfully as the religious. But what do you think is better - Absolute faith in a real person whom you can see and touch or absolute faith in something in which you don't even have a good reason to believe exists?

I'd say the former is better (if only marginally so). But you can't seriously put Hitchens followers in the same boat as the religiously faithful.

[fizzkick]

@JKalaster I commed you on not being a reactionary Hitchens fan and attempting to resort to ridicule unlike some lower IQ responses Ive had but I really feel the need to stress again, I am not talking about Hitchens fans collectively. I mentioned earlier I am talking about a certain type: a type who insist that all debaters opposing Hitchens are humiliated and incapable of making valid points. In such cases the 'lmao' comments ensue as if its a slaughter. With Wolpe atleast this is untrue.

[plimbuff]

@fizzkick, you are using a classic STRAW MAN argument.

Seriously, Where are all these "Hitchens Groupies" you speak of who "blindly" agree with "EVERYTHING" he says?

LOL, that's a classic Straw man argument.

Seriously, you should look up "Straw Man Argument".

If you learn to avoid using basic logical fallacies, you won't get crushed in future debates.

[fizzkick]

@plimbuff you come across very much like someone who has just discovered the term 'straw man argument' and youre a little too eager to use it where it doesnt fit. I dont need to look it up because its a basic concept and one that does not apply here.The very reason I made my comments is because of the sheer number of people speaking as though anyone opposing Hitchens is an utter embarrasment even when its not the case.Your childish LOLand misuse of the term 'straw man' tells me enough about you.

[ExtremeBogom]

@fizzkick

I agree with you there.

I am an Atheist myself, and agree with many things Hitchens says, along with many Dawkins points.

But there is a definate Hitchens/Dawkins worship going around.

Similar to what teens hold about their musical icons.

[fizzkick]

@ExtremeBogom Thankyou. I'm glad there are atleast some actual intelligent people such as you and Fjord who can recognise the simple point I was making, and you put it very succinctly. Its funny that those who have responded defensively have exposed themselves as the reactionary groupie types I was speaking of. If they were not so preoccupied with being offended they would have realised that I was merely calling for an objective approach or as Fjord stated its no different from indoctrination.

[RaidenTheAlmighty]

Hitchens isn't perfect, he is only human. However, I think the majority of his arguments are rock solid. And I think that most of the arguments raised by the people he debates are poorly founded. They're based on pre suppositions and generally not supported by evidence.

Even most of william craigs arguments are pretty poor.

[fizzkick]

@RaidenTheAlmighty That's fair. I do however rate Wolpe alot higher than William Craig or Dinesh D'Souza for that matter. Having read Wolpe's book I like the fact that he does not try and match intellectual agression with Hitchens and the like and seems to sincerely sympathise with much of the new atheist line of argument.

[RaidenTheAlmighty]

True. I just don't see him putting forth very good arguments.

[fractaldog]

@fizzkick it doesn't seem like a feather in the cap for critical thought to attack a *general* sentiment (support for hitchens) with the point that excessive adoration and idolatry are bad--the idea is platitudinous and vague; you aren't even talking to a particular person (or about a specific comment), who may or may not be blindly following hitchens, but rather you decide to infer *in principle* a mental deficiency from people that decide to cheer him on

[bigsexy1234567]

@fizzkick A lot of Hitchen supporters can't stand his stance on war (the current one for instance) If they do support him them usually do on this topic alone.

[bigfry74]

@fizzkick People love his debating style you noob!!!

[cabree76]

wolpe is such a question dodger

[BoundaryShift]

What remarkable changes would have taken place throughout humanity if the Origin of Species or A Brief History of Time were the bible?

[BoundaryShift]

Why isn't there any prescience in the bible for God's sake. An explanation of viruses, gravity, natural selection or any material that creates validity for posterity. Wouldn't that create more of a following than having subject matter that shows no universality and is purely political and generational. Why does Wolpe say that the bible updates itself to conform to the newest sociological and scientific changes; as if the bible is adaptive.

[JimmysCrackhorn]

I think the entire argument should be about whether God exists. There is only one right answer.

The questioner got it right asking "If nobody had ever told you about it would you have figured it out..."

[BoundaryShift]

Secularists manage to exhibit the same morality and compassion as theists in times of distress by substituting judgment and false hopes with the realization that one didn't feel pain or distress for the billions of years before one was born and that after one dies there will not be condemnation. An expression of love is recognizable without a shroud.

[sansdieu]

Wolpe certainly has done better than any of the Christians I have seen Hitch debate, which I suppose one may attribute to the great erudite traditions within Judaism that are painfully insufficient within Christianity. However, I must say the concept of goodness which Wolpe espouses is not as plain as he makes it seem. Exhortations to goodness made in the Jewish holy books are extremely loaded and conditioned in many horridly malicious ways (ways which I would call highly immoral and bellicose.)

[cjunk351]

Atheist need to shut the fuck up, and learn that they are the ones 'chosen' by nature to be the 'elite' ones. Let nature spit out all the dummies in life. If you find your self 'awake', then realise the excess of dummies are for our usage. i think we need to stop trying to share it with others, and use our ability to know freedom, and take control without the dummies knowing.

Just a thought............I am off to make myself the Messiah

[fusedchromosome]

On the discussion about religious charity, I would say it's a critical component of spreading your religion and giving it a veneer of credibility. Any religion that doesn't practice charity (and advertise the fact) isn't going to last long. Conversely, any religion (no matter how silly it's doctrine) will gain some level of acceptance simply by virtue of it's charitable activities. It's also a great money making scheme. Take in a lot, give out a little and, voila, you've got a business.

[rhblackburn]

@fusedchromosome  Well said and right on.

[cristop5]

I don't believe in god at all, but I like Wolpe more than I like Hitchens. If only more religious leaders were as thoughtful and open minded as he is.

[SRTtoZ]

@cristop5 I know what you mean, but I still love hitchens regardless...hes not the nicest person, but you have to stop being nice when you hear so much bullshit from religious followers 24/7 you know? Although I agree, Wolpe was very down to earth and someone who actually understood and lets people think the way they want to think. This coming first hand from someone who was at the "HOLY LAND EXPERIENCE" themepark and got yelled at the lady with pink hair...ok?

[SRTtoZ]

@cristop5 I know what you mean, but I still love hitchens regardless...hes not the nicest person, but you have to stop being nice when you hear so much bullshit from religious followers 24/7 you know? Although I agree, Wolpe was very down to earth and someone who actually understood and lets people think the way they want to think. This coming first hand from someone who was at the "HOLY LAND EXPERIENCE" themepark and got yelled at the lady with pink hair...ok?

[SRTtoZ]

Id rather have hitchens at my deathbed because he could at least make me laugh...thats the way Id rather go than listen to a bunch of bullshit.

[ehcmier]

@SRTtoZ LOL. Yer funny. You should know he wouldn't bother with such silliness at all, lest he contradict himself. You should also know that you wouldn't have a Rabbi at your bedside if you didn't believe in anything he had to say. Why would you choose to have anybody at your bedside to begin with, instead of just drugged unconscious, for instance? Your life is at an end, remove pain and thought and slip away into nothingness...

[richter75]

Who of these two would you have at your death bed?

Or , who would you have had at your mothers death bed?

Last one is more difficult most of the time. For me its no choice, but for the children of catholic mothers its very hard. Thats the problem.

[ThroneofEden]

"don't applaud that."

Applause get louder.

I think the audience has spoken, you quack.

[Albtraumen]

@ThroneofEden By Golly! You're right!!!

[ItsameAlex]

@ThroneofEden

I'm an atheist but I don't walk around with Hitchens' dick in my mouth like the rest of you guys.

Hitchens did not ask 'what evidence do you have for the existence of god' to which wolpe is supposed to have avoided.

Hichens was talking about morals, to which wolpe gave a response.

I'm an atheist but I recognise when the other side makes good points. I'm bemused when I see how blinded my fellow atheists are due their overly-devotional cocksucking of the atheist advocate

[ThroneofEden]

@ItsameAlex Oooh, mister. It's hard to see you way up there on your high horse.

[ItsameAlex]

@ThroneofEden

Someone said 'it's funny how wolpe can talk so much without saying anything at all'

I disagree. His responses are conscise and filled with new material. If you want to see someone who talks so much yet says nothing at all, I would recommend Alistair McGrath.

[skedaddleMLS]

"going to mecca and taking your diseases with you" LOL LOL LOL

[Bangell99]

Oho, one of the few intelligent questions I've heard during Hitchens' debates. (5:00)

[richter75]

@Bangell99 Ye, and the answer came as quick as it does with a car salesman.. ;).

[MsCoralline]

Wolpe's statements, around 6:00, about science's power to make statements about the existence of God devolve into, essentially, "Science has great power, and should apply to the question of God's existence, but... oh, well, you can't apply evidence to such a question." It's a tremendously likable way of saying, "My beliefs don't need evidence."

[niginit]

Tremendously deplorable imo, but I can see how some people would hear something like that and think that he's being modest.

[MsCoralline]

@niginit Oh, I'm in agreement with the deplorability.