Christopher Hitchens vs. Dinesh D'Souza, debate at CU-Boulder (Part 6 of 13)

[malkaraatgw1]

Christopher Hitchens demonstrates the art of rhetorical logic, and how to address the blinkered

[bbkingzor]

Who are these buffoons cheering for D'Souza ??

[TheEmanuelaG]

Well, while I normally think Christopher Hitchens is brilliant (and I almost always think he's right) I can't believe he just responded to D'Souza murky logic with his stick answers against religion.

[qwer4o]

Poor D'Souza... He got ass-fucked :)

[Bluelincolnpark]

This audiance is so stupid, they will clap at anything. Hitchens raped Denish.

[tekhiun]

i actually thought that dsouza was an educated man, however his comment in history shows the exact opposite.

[emailgarbage20]

Hitler hated Christianity and William Shirer writes as follows: "the Nazi regime intended eventually to destroy Christianity in Germany, if it could, and subsitute the old paganism of the Nazi extremists. As Bormann, one of the men closest to Hitler, said publicly in 1941, 'National Socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable.'" Also, Hitler's philosopher Rosenberg wanted to replace the Bibles in the pulpits with Mein Kampf. See Rise and Fall of the Third Reich pages 238-240.

[AmerginMacEccit]

Hitler and Himmler were raised catholic but later they got involved in other cults like Thule society that encompassed a variety of old Germanic cults. Those old religions mixed with some Asian traditions gave rise to a new religion and philosophy that was especially popular among the Nazi elite and SS, it was to become a dominating religion in the new Reich eventualy.

However, the majority of people supporting and fighting for Hitler were protestant or catholic, nothing can change that.

[adknerr]

Obviously I'm not a Hitler historian, but I tend to take what someone has written about themselves, spoken about in public, and what they have said to people in private (but on record) as what their beliefs and intentions are.

If you look at these for Hitler, it was clear he hated what Christianity was at the time, but certainly wanted to bring it back to what he thought it should have been. Definitely his personal interpretation.

Read Mein Kampf, it was certainly not an athiest movement.

[agentssith]

D'Souza Fail Epic. Once again.

Human progress has notoriously been punctuated alternately with exponential growth and decay. It could be asserted, albeit with some hesitation, that we are currently in a growth cycle. D'Souza once again reaches into his hole to independently assert that he knows exactly where the inflection point (if there is such a thing as applied to an exponential) IS -3000 ya. There is no limit to D'Souza's arrogance or ignorance.

[luerwulf]

"And then suddenly, .. about 3000 years ago, takeoff.

I might almost venture .. that it almost seems as if some transcendent creature leaned into the world and breathed some kind of a message or a soul into man and suddenly, savage man became Biblical man." - D'Souza

Uh, it was about 6000 years ago:

How long do you suppose it would have taken a herd of D'Souzas to learn to smelt bronze? I'm glad there were some, albeit illiterate, individuals around who would put D'Souza's intellect to shame.

[goldgoku3264]

i see one man using logic and giving examples in his argument. i see another man just complaining. can anyone is tell the difference?

[goldgoku3264]

the problem with most of the people who's arguments are against dsouza, is they just attack his statements. the don't really show examples why he's wrong.

maybe they can't?

[luerwulf]

"the problem with most of the people who's arguments are against dsouza, is they just attack his statements"-

Yeah, it's a bit like the people who only attack the statements in favor of worshiping the flying Spaghetti Monster. They don't really show examples of why that's wrong.

Maybe they can't. (?)

[goldgoku3264]

sure i can..

i move to mottive of plausability... show me a people that believe in ufo's or leprechans or spegetti montsers for a few thousand years or at least a majority of the population and i might take it seriously. Christianity does have a defense for your over simplification.

[luerwulf]

"the problem with most of the people who's arguments are against dsouza, is they just attack his statements. the don't really show examples why he's wrong . . show me a people that believe in ufo's or leprechans or spegetti montsers for a few thousand years or at least a majority of the population "-

An argumentum ad populum is what's wrong with that tack. See, other idiots have already done your shtick so often that it already has a universally recognized name.

[irishmauddib]

Sorry, are you saying that things become more true if more people believe in them for longer?

Puh-leese. If there is no evidence for your god entity then so be it, but suggesting that greater numbers of people saying it is true actually makes it true is the lamest argument that is available to us.

[goldgoku3264]

No... i just think that in order to determine the validity of a claim, be it the majority or minority of people claiming it.... you research; not just scientific but historical research, then as an INDIVIDUAL make a decision based on the evidence you find.

but you must understand. Majority of the things we believe in has little to no evidence at all... life in general is one of them.

[irishmauddib]

So we are agreed that the idea that the majority of people believing something doesnt make it true. So your plausibility comment due to majority was pretty dumb. Thats a good start.

We are also agreed we have to make a decision based on the evidence we are given. Thats a good start too.

Now we reach the point where NO ONE has EVER given me ANY evidence for a god entity. Not ever.

If you have any to provide then I am agog to hear it

[goldgoku3264]

ill answer you question with a question.

can you give me independent proof that the external world you interact with or the 5 senses you use to experience life does in fact correspond with the external world you experience?

[Hyacinthus2]

I find it hilarious that you're so assiduously undermining your argument.

This argument begins with the assumption that the material world exists. If we pursue your line of reasoning, religion becomes even more ridiculous than it already is: an illusion within an illusion instead of a single illusion.

[irishmauddib]

first I did not ask a question, I made a statement that if you have any evidence to provide I am agog to hear it.

If you do not have any thats fine, however tangents such as this do not interest me one iota. What I can or can not prove or provide evidence for has no effect on what you can or can not provide evidence for. Gods of the gaps have no interest for me.

[goldgoku3264]

For the time is coming when people will not endure(G) sound[a] teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, 4and(H) will turn away from listening to the truth and(I) wander off into myths

[Myndir]

You mean as in the way that Hitchens gave the example of China, destroying many of D'Souza's points?

[goldgoku3264]

no i mean the example dsouza gives in video 13 at 44 sec.

over hitchens.

[flagsandstaff]

Another indefensible argument by D'Souza.

Stalin did not commit his atrocities in the name of secularism. Christians - all throughout history and today - commit untold atrocities in the name of Christianity: the extermination of 60 million native peoples in the Americas, for example, or further back, the Crusades, or Spanish Inquisition, or more recently Jim Jones and Jim Baker...and on and on ad infinitum.

[goldgoku3264]

well if they committed those acts in the name of Christianity, then they weren't Christian. To be a Christian means to be like Christ. that's what are goal is. Christ didn't kill anyone. and He taught us not to.

stalin hitler pol pot. all were trying to create the cecular utopia. atheism takes that one.

[deBeuk]

"well if they committed those acts in the name of Christianity, then they weren't Christian"

That's a no true scotsman fallacy.

"To be a Christian means to be like Christ"

No, to be christian means to accept christ as your savior.

"stalin hitler pol pot. all were trying to create the cecular utopia"

No, they weren't.

[lonerook860]

I would argue that any regime, atheistic or religious, that commands obedience without question, is nationalistic and promises peace and paradise after a struggle - producing a war economy, tyranny and suffering. So the problem is human obedience to tyrannical and expansionist regimes and the point that Hitchens is making is that religion provides the power base and moral permission to form such regimes today.

Modern day secularism is liberal, and prevents the upstart of such regimes.

[tielec01]

Classic no true scotsman fallacy

[jonestimothy15]

goldgoku,

Hitler was a Christian, as were the Nazis. Many SS men committed their genocidal atrocities just after having attended Sunday Mass.

Pol Pot and Stalin didn't kill in the name of atheism, whereas Christians did - and do - kill in the name of Christ.

Nietzche said: "There is only one Christian, and he died on the cross."

[emailgarbage20]

Jones - Hitler's philosopher Rosenberg wanted to replace the Bible in the churches with Mein Kampf. Hitler hated Christianity, and rather admired Nieztche. Hitler appointed a Nazi named Kerrl to the German church and Kerrl wrote as follows: "Christianity is not dependent on the Apostle's Creed ... True Christianity is represented by the party .. Christianity is National Socialism." Needless to say, this is a perversion of Christianity. See Rise and Fall of the Third Reich pages 238-240.

[Gungfuwarrior]

I think you should read Mein Kempf instead of a book about it, then you'd see your wrong, Hitler was all about jesus & god. He killed the atheists WITH the jews.

[emailgarbage20]

Gung - when Hitler wrote Mein Kampf he was a politician who wanted to attain power! Politicians sometimes lie to attain power! Hitler killed anyone who disagreed with him, regardless of whether they were religious or not.

[flagsandstaff]

emailgarbage - Hitler distorted Nietzche's philosophy. Nietzche thoroughly rejected the nascent Nazi movement simmering in his time, and wrote as much in letters to his sister.

Yes, the Nazis certainly did "distort Christianity," didn't they? (While Jesus was turning the other cheek, the Nazis were killing everything that moved.)

I like Hitchen's comment that religious people even claim to "to correctly interpret the thoughts of the Creator."

[AmerginMacEccit]

Ricky Gervais did a brilliant sketch about Hitler misinterpreting Nietzche. Look for "Gervais Hitler Nietzche" here on you tube. As for Hitler and Christianity, I can't really stand this stupid debate between atheists and believers. Both groups need to do fundamental studies about the Nazism and the III Reich to understand what was really going on there. Nobody serious would try to close the discussion with "Hitler was an atheist" or "Hitler was a Christian" to prove something.

[goldgoku3264]

i disagree a little. Hitler hated Christians... Read Mein Kampf,

in fact Hitler used religion as a means for power to control... he never really followed its teachings...the church did not support his agendas...

A great man once said, when you throw mud at others, not only do you get your own hands dirty, but you lose alot of ground.

there are lots of good Christians out there. but majority of them, wont be arguing on youtube.

[symelian]

to partly qoute u : "in fact "every rule" used religion as a means of power to control" ...

[beelz3333]

"I'm back!"

[Gungfuwarrior]

FINALLY someone brought up the curse of ham.

[adstanra]

It is quite plausible ( although not probable to my mind) that socrates did not exist. He may have been used by philosphers as a muse for dialogue. Certainly would not consider anyone to be idiotic to suggest Socarates or Jesus as mythical. Muses for a way of thinking, written into history.

[Boreas74]

Is D'Souza dishonest or just an idiot?

[DionysianAssassin]

dishonest, like almost all religious people

[luerwulf]

"dishonest, like almost all religious people"-

Given his circumscribed talent for language as evidenced by his inability to differentiate between prescriptive 'law(s)' and descriptive 'laws' as well as his other fantasies about the supposition that 'the universe is rational', I have the uneasy sense that he's a dishonest idiot.

One doesn't rule out the other so why skimp on compliments.

[dcole2]

Has D'Souza never studied the evolution of consciousness?

[darwinkilledgod]

He's not interested in scholarship, he's interested in winning debates. If that's your goal actually learning about a complicated topic isn't very interesting.