P6 - D'Souza vs. Hitchens - Freedom Fest 2008

[Domzdream]

Dinesh comes on...

All you hear is- (slurp) (slurp) (slurp)

Like a lizard or which ever reptile you prefer.

[Gazdo01]

"That was terrible Dinesh".... LOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLL

I'm a Catholic and still find this funny :)

[hossamgebeily]

This debate is not even fair. Hitchens is too good !

[civilianpuke]

I guess if you have an English accent and academic vocabulary like him you have to be automatically right in the eyes of an average American highschool graduate.

But he is funnier than d'Souza though, i have to admit to that: "...poor fools...they get 72 mothers in law as well".

[civilianpuke]

Hitchens contradicts himself here.

In one of his books he thinks it's impotant enough to note that there is no proof of Jesus' existence, but right after d'Souza proofs the same can be said about Socrates, Hitchens replies the person in question doesn't matter, because it's the persons ideas and it's merits that count, ironically advocating christianity. So he confirms d'Souza's claim that christianity is wrongfully judged with different standards.

[bertramcates]

@civilianpuke There is no contradiction on Hitchens' part. Pay attention to what he said in the beginning of part 8 of this debate. He said it doesn't matter whether Socrates existed because "we don't say of Socrates that he had miraculous powers and if you don't believe in what he said you'll go to hell or heaven." Christianity SHOULD be held to a different standard because of the claims it makes!

[bcgonynor]

@civilianpuke No, what Hitch said is that Christianity is fairly judged by different standards because it makes different claims. If Socrates never existed, and was simply a rhetorical invention by Plato, one can still draw inspiration from the dialogues regardless. On the other hand, if Jesus never existed, or was not divine in the way described, one cannot expect Him to redeem sinners or return to judge the quick and the dead, etc. One could still read and enjoy the Gospels as inspiring myths.

[bcgonynor]

If you don't like the Socrates example, consider Shakespeare. Some people think that Shakespeare was a pen name or persona, and that his plays were truly written by Christopher Marlowe and/or one of several female candidates. If this could be proven, it would be interesting, but would in no way detract from one's enjoyment of Hamlet. But if there were a religion that worshiped Shakespeare, and taught that he was still alive and all-powerful, his fictionality would be a devastating blow to them.

[Dgoosh1000]

@bcgonynor Some people? I hope that doesn't include you. The rest of the argument is sound, Hitch-like, logic.

But seriously, Shakespeare was real. William Shakespeare born: 26 April 1564; died 23 April 1616

[bcgonynor]

@Dgoosh1000 I was just using Shakespeare as a hypothetical example. I do believe he was real, but as I was saying it doesn't really matter. I love Shakespeare, and if he were just an alias for someone else I would love "Shakespeare" just as much, whether it was Mary Sidney or Marlowe or someone else.

[davelantor]

"Then any of the nonsense Dinesh just tried to pass on to you" BUUUUURN !!!

[MrSim1962]

Hitchens is critically wrong with his own lack of research in the bible . He is insensitive with his own moral understanding. Criticism does not approve his logic . He only make statements by accusing others for fabricating the facts while he himself just fabricated his own lies.

[GeneralJakass]

@MrSim1962 "He fabricates his own lies." Isn't that a double negative?

And please sight a source a quote where it proves Hitchens wrong.

[keithhickson]

Yes, that's shit on your head D'Souza because Hitchens once again has masterfully shit all over your absurd argument.

[Domzdream]

Notice how Dinash always does that slimey, licking sound just before speaking. Like a squishy, slimey, snakey kind of sound. LIke that sound a face-hugger from the movie 'Aliens ' does after the climing out of its coccoon.

[clamantuanguyan]

@Domzdream lol that is disgusting

[AnthorAlderian]

D'Souza is so smug it's disgusting. I don't really like Hitchens for the same reason, but his arrogance pales in comparison to the way Dinesh fails to make a coherent point, instead just rambling dangerous fallacies and laughing at his own bad jokes.

[Floridanon407]

@AnthorAlderian At least Hitchens has at least some basis of competence for his perceived arrogance.

I would argue that competence is substantial, but that's just me. D'Souza is just a bad joke himself.

[Aliof]

Hitchens is brilliant. 

[tehKap0w]

"that was terrible..."

true that!

[gskowal]

"that was terrible Dinesh..." Hahaha, best part of the whole debate... it summarizes Dinesh and his dumb arguments.

[wilyMD]

@gskowal I immediately after hearing it, had to see if someone commented on that quote. It instantly relieved me of the hair-pulling stress I felt after Part 5.

[FinisReflectatOpus]

@gskowal sarcasm is the last recourse of intellectual poverty. The issue is not which of them is correct (I don't really have a dog in that race) it's more that one argued rationally and in earnest, the other seemed only to taunt and exaggerate. On one or two occasions Hitchens sought recourse to actual argument, and made sequenced points that held together. Hundreds of times, he just peddles his own faith, somewhat fanatically.

[gskowal]

@FinisReflectatOpus , his own faith? lol ... ok kiddo...

[FinisReflectatOpus]

@gskowal Exactly, his own faith. Or maybe there has been some recent advance in symbolic logic that allows people to prove negatives? If so, kiddo, would you mind outlining that for me? Show me how logic and reason can compass these types of ideas and problems? One can only point out contradictions, red herrings, straw men, ad hominem, evasions, vitriol, rhetorical statements, etc. as being particularly onerous. I merely point out Hitchens words (and conspicuous dodges) ran thick with these.

[gskowal]

@FinisReflectatOpus ,Hitchens words? List few of these examples you are talking about , where Hitch is using faith based statements as his arguments supporting his position?

[setmedic]

couldn't Jesus have informed the world that we were indeed living on a round planet. How hard would that have been? That's not asking for too much.

[shieldsff]

yeah, well that all might hold some validity if your [false] assumption were correct; namely, that the 'belief system' is itself false. you have not at all established that the belief is actually false simply because it happens to be contrary to what you have direct knowledge of !. Also, I don't believe God is on 'my side'- I am trying to be on his. How it that one can conveniently ignore that secularist who have held a utilitarian view of man & society are now all benevolent

[jnorton1]

Hitchens owns this one.

[kjis1000]

Mr Hitchen, if there's no God, how come there is a Bible ? wiseguy

[jerryhello100]

Boom, I was thinking that about Socrates. It doesn't matter if he existed, but the ideas about the forms and what-not do, and that's what I'm concerned with.

[shieldsff]

@jerryhello100 - . Jesus insists that he came to save men from their SINS, not to bring them any temporal government of men or system of moral education. Please STOP distorting the positions !

[shieldsff]

@jerryhello100 yes, true perhaps, but this line of reasoning is a strawman argument (again). Jesus NEVER claimed to offer a system of moral propositions or like socrates, a theory of political philosophy. Please read the Gospel of John and writings of the Apostles to see what he did state. The highly educated, but brutal, murderous Jewish Pharisee Saul had completely despised JEsus- you have no explanation of his renunciation of judaism

[leporidus]

Hitchens at his best.

[shieldsff]

In fact, the Bible says that God created humans and endowed them with a mind so that they would use it.6 The Bible says that God and Jesus Christ will test the minds (as well as the hearts) of people.,9 describes the changes God does in both the heart and the mind of those who are transformed.10 The Bible says that those who do not believe do so, in part, because of deception in their minds.11 This deception leads to hostility to God and defiling of their minds and consciences

[Turandot29]

...and isn't it a pity that so many of the religiously inclined overlook this passage and refuse to use their brains ....

[shieldsff]

No, you are....wrong. There is nothing stupid in pointing out that he distorts and mistrepresents tghe teachings of Jesus & the Way. Christians do not merely hold that Jesus is a good teacher like Socrate; rather, He is the Light & Savior of the World

[dojohansen123]

Bah. Do you really think anyone's going to fall for this? That just saying "He is the Light" is going to convince any thinking person of anything other than you being a desperate, gullible man?

Religion should be treated with the contempt and ridicule it deserves. It's high time to stop pretending that mythology and religion is not the same thing; it obviously is.

[naynay7456]

Pretty impotent and weak savior, one that allows the horrific death of millions of innocent adults and children each year from cancer, natural disasters, murders, genocides, etc. You obviously are a christian due to one of two reasons: 1) you were indoctrinated as a christian by your parents 2) you hit a very low point in your life and needed something to cling to. We are sick of you and your people running our government and stopping progress, and we the 14% (of thinkers) will soon prevail.

[shieldsff]

may aren't you such a wonderful rbiter of the thoughts, minds and intents of men. Apparently you and Hitchens attended the same school of closed-minded, hateful, materialism- is that what it is ?????

[naynay7456]

No, quite the opposite - it is not hateful, my friend, to demand extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims and to keep an open mind about how the universe works. I believe it is hateful to hold, as your christian theology does, that those who do not accept christ as their savior will burn in eternal damnation.

[Adrealist]

@naynay7456 As Hitler said, "The people will believe a big lie easier than a small one" Religion has fed off that basic human flaw since the beginning of our existence upon this Earth. When Hitler rose to power the Christians helped kill the Jews right alongside everyone else. It gave them absolutely zero 'divine guidance'.

[XxVaneStarrX]

Just out of curiosity what is a christian to you? Like what does it mean?

[Adrealist]

@XxVaneStarrX A loose term where when asked what a person believes in they say, "Jesus", or "God" (Christian God of the Bible), instead of the Koran, or belief in Budda, Zeus, Wicca, and the 3,800 other Gods on this planet. Then it depends on how they interpret the bible and what they feel is a 'real christian', and the group of people who they say, "claim to be Christians... but have it wrong". I consider anyone who considers themselves a Christian, to be one. Same with Atheist/Agnostics.

[naynay7456]

you would not believe this if you were born in 65% of the rest of the world. Face it, it was fed to you and you bought into it.

[shieldsff]

@naynay7456 -- please, come up with something a little more original will ya !! That is such a superficial, old assertion. Christianity is GLOBAL friend... Have you even ever traveled outside the country ?

[naynay7456]

Of course I have. Have you ever studied world history or anthropology?

Christianity is not intrinsic to anywhere in the new world (north and south america), asia, africa, etc. It was spread through conquest/imperialism/evangelic­al missions etc., Its globalness speaks nothing to its truth and viability. why is humankind over 3,000,000 years old and why is christianity 2,000 years old? why would god wait 2,998,000 years of human history to reveal his son/self?

[Turandot29]

Exactly. Well said, naynay. The success of Christianity and, for that matter, Islam, in relatively recent human times is simply due to MARKETING.

[shieldsff]

It is Hitchens who undermines his own character in his contradictory behavior. He had no apparent problem appearing on all manner of right-wing ('nominally' christian) program to make all nice while advancing his own agenda; yet he regularly rabidly attacks believers with all manner of offensive invectives and insults.

[shieldsff]

MMy statements are not offered in any type of defense or sympathy to D'Sousa...(like Hitchens he often arrives at the  the most illogicall, contradictory, uninformede conclusions). However, We are NOT ashamed of the Gospel of Jesus which is the power of God to salvation to all who believe-first to the Jew and then the Gentile. Jesus is Lord.

[naynay7456]

you are delusional and self-serving in your interests and salvation-obsession. It's sad that a faith so self serving as christianity, whose mission is to "gain entrance" to heaven through "belief", is so popular. An all powerful god such as yours would not have such low self esteem in obsessing whether his created beings "believe in him."

[shieldsff]

@naynay7456 "SALVATION OBSESSION"...., yeah exactly- I like that ! I am always amazed at how some people come up with new & disengenuous ways to distort others beliefs. Frankly, I had always thought of it as a LIFE /TRUTH obsession. In contrast that is to the numerous proven mendacities in life. A recommendation: instead of all of Hitchens' indoctrinations, why not try reading & studing the Gospel accounts for URself. IF U cannot accept Jesus zoe as yours then U WILL have the alternativ

[shieldsff]

The radical conversion of the disciples (Jesus's contemporaries) and their prolific murders at the hand of the empire would seemingly alone undermines Hitchins' belliigerent acct; why is he such a reprobate ? Why do he also not address the subsequent fact that 10s of thousands continued to accept Jesus even the face of systemic, mass torture & death by the empire. There is no 'fakery' in the life & resurretion of JESUS.

[Locateson]

That was really terrible, Dinseh.

[VarialProductions]

Haha, classic.

[shieldsff]

Rom 3:23-For all have sinned & fallen short of the glory of God; Rom. 6:23-For the wages of sin is deathl but the gife of God is EVER- LASTING LIFE through Jesus Christ. our  Lord. Act 3:19-"Repent you, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out.; Rom 5:8- But God commendeth His Love towards us in that , while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

[valkerian]

Yup, I'm convinced. Guess I'm spending the rest of my life and afterlife on my knees. Thanks!

[shieldsff]

valkerian - Good for you. Glad there are still miracle today !

[shieldsff]

Hitchins is factually incorrect and misleading in his assertion that the main witnesses were females ("stupide & illiterate" in his words).... Rather the women were the first witnesses and later numerous people of both genders interacted with the resurrected Jesus. Jesus said the proof of His claimes lies in his resurrection. Sadly, Hitchins distorts and superficially conflates trhoughout this rebuttal

[CrosshairJack]

The gospel where that is written actually ends with the women finding the empty tomb.

The passages that say others saw jesus are actually false and were added later. This is a well known fact if you do the research.

Bart Ehrman, a world famous bible historian, probably the best in the world has verified this from the manuscripts that have been collected through the ages.

Search on youtube for "Misquoting Jesus" it's one Ehrman's lectures. Worth watching.

[shieldsff]

CrosshairJack - thnks for your comments and yes I am familiar w/Ehrman,,,,, frankly what gets me about pple citing him is how faciliely they overlook the fact that the even more renowned scholar, Bruce Metzger( Ehrman's instructor BTW) has sharply criticised and denounced his scholarship. If you research here on youtube you will also find numerous other detractors Also I think it dubious that passage was amended; U would still have a lot of eyewitness testimony to deal with

[CrosshairJack]

I've never heard of Metzger, I'll look into that.

As for eyewitness testimony, as far as I am aware all of the gospels were written decades after the supposed events happened.

I don't think you could verify with any real certainty that the eyewitness testimony is correct as it was written after the event.

Also if there were eyewitnesses, why don't we have any other evidence or documents written by these eyewitnesses? All "evidence" for these events only resides in the bible and nowhere else.

[VarialProductions]

"that the main witness"

I was reading your boring attack of Hitchens and looking for some credibility. So I searched for the word "only" in the original quote. "Main" doesn't preclude extra witnesses.

Sorry.

[shieldsff]

well, good use of UR time there mate, I guess !

[VarialProductions]

worry about your own time pal

[shieldsff]

I see little need to worry about that on my part as (unlike you) I do not waste time with unsolicited, irrelevant, uninsightful comments.... you know what I mean ?!?

[VarialProductions]

My point was that main doesn't exclude other witnesses. I do believe that the common opinion among new testament historians is that the main witnesses WERE women. He didn't say only. He said main which seems to be in conformity with the mainstream historians. No revisionism here.

sorry.

[shieldsff]

Again, he is incorrect that the women were the "main" witnesses. You speculate completely in your assertion that there is agreement among 'historians' about the witnesses; who are these historians ? Jesus never said believe me because...."his mother didn't concieve him with man"; rather he said search the scriptures because THEY testify of me !

[VarialProductions]

Well even if your right its still stupid because your trying to attack Hitchens character to prove a point.

It is true that many believers think that JEsus' being born of a virgin is some significant event that shows his divinity. Hitchens is trying to show that in the normal rational mind there is no connection between a virgin conception and "truth".

You are really reaching to find the SO few flaws of atheists.

[shieldsff]

He is invincibly & willfully ignorant to the many evidences of faith which plainly exists in front of are own eyes in the good, kind works of devoted people who obey the love & will of faithfully. He serves the cause of society much more when he sticks with high moral causes such as the exposure of a Mr. Kissinger. Hitchens makes for a clearly HORRIBLE expositor of Christian theology, history & practice.

[VarialProductions]

Believe what you want.

Your nothing I haven't seen before.

[naynay7456]

the functional utility of faith (i.e. faithful people do good works, therefore faith in the extraordinary must be good) is weak and doesn't support it's existence. Many agnostics like myself do far more good for humanity than many of your religious brethren.

[Adrealist]

@naynay7456 or at least... You are more likely to do it for the right reasons, and not just to get into some kind of Heaven. I've volunteered at religious organizations before. The three separate groups I was with all acted like they didn't really want to be there. Very 'un-Jesus' like. I hope secular organizations are different but haven't had a chance to find out yet.

[shieldsff]

Hitchins is not convincing though, in his insistence on the 'fakery ' of the story (i.e., certain, limited accts). He minimizes and obsures the fact that prior to the canonization of the Bible, Christians were violently prosecuted and murdered throughout the empire for HUNDREDS of years. The letters were widely circulated and copied. Christians DO NOT insist that every detail is perfect, merely the major doctrines & teachings

[fuckyiuyiu]

Hitchens is brilliant here. Come back to the UK Hitch! We need you here...

[MrSalamander7]

Fuck you friend, America is way worse off religiously than you guys.

[inactivism]

"That was terrible Dinesh."

[niinja2]

then only refutation hitchens did was at the beggining where he says " that was terrible d'nesh" and at the end where he says "that what d'nesh says is nonsence..." i mean what kind of idiot you have to be, not to see that the only arguments hitchens can came up are ad hominem.

[todore00]

Did you actually watch the video? He gave a complete refutation of D'Souza's argument.

[niinja2]

dinesh made 2 points:

1) that we dont doubt other people from history based on the equivalent evidence for their existence.

hitchens did not answer to this, he spoke about the validity of a philosophy not on the validity of historical evidence and dsouza points this out immediately on the video num 7

he said that there was probably a man there based on the made up census and the confidence of women as witnesses, if the story would be made up they would made it up more credibly.

continued

[niinja2]

2) dinesh talked about the spreading of christianity and the level of persuasion christians had in their belief.

hitchens said nothing about that

0 : 2

no refutation

[todore00]

Hahaha yeah just keep fooling yourself. If you're too unintelligent to understand Hitchen's rebuttal then you're not really worth talking to. If you don't even TRY to understand the debate, and base all your objections on your dislike of Hitchens, then you clearly inhabit the mental capacity of a newt.

[todore00]

This video might clear a couple things up (although its fairly simplistic anyway)

watch?v=k3o54qBoJhc

[niinja2]

im not the one fooling myself.

dsouza did make a good point but with a bad example. None of them impress me much because dsouza also evades questions and makes funny remarks like its means something

and the comments on that video are made by ignorant person. What i would like to see among you " intelligent " people is some "critical thinking skills " you are so proud of.

Intelligence does not exclude bias and lack of criticism.

Any person that does not agree with you is not necessarily stupid.

[niinja2]

Correction:

intelligence does not necessarily include critical thinking skills.

I dont doubt your intelligence but i do doubt your knowledge, do you believe hitchens that Jesus never existed or have you convinced yourself by research that Jesus did not exist?

[Xorinite]

It is not up to me to show he did not exist. I have examined the 'evidence' presented to say he did exist and I do not find it compelling. The burden of proof lies with the one who is making the claim that Jesus as described in the bible existed, not with the skeptic.

To clarify, it is not that I have been convinced that he did not exist, it is that there has been nothing which is convincing to show he did exist (at least as described in the bible)

[niinja2]

if you have really examined the evidence then there is nothing i can do to convince you that Jesus did exist.

The problem here however is the standard which is made for Jesus and and other standard for every other historical person, and they are no the same.

[Xorinite]

As far as I can see the argument that D'Souza presented is:

Philosophers believe that Socrates existed based upon poor evidence, therefore you should believe Jesus existed based upon poor evidence.

Many don't, but even if they did, its an argument from authority fallacy, and philosophers are not historians.

Additionally the teachings of Socrates are valid regardless of the source. But Jesus, if he is not a god, then his promises cannot be met. Just stating my impressions.

[niinja2]

poor evidence is the only evidence we have for almost any historical person, that's why those kind of evidence would not hold in any court of law.

they do hold in a court of history, and by this standard we should trust them.

If he is not a God it all fails, but what we are discussing here is, was a man named Jesus real person or fictional character?

Neither is Sam Harris a student of religion or human behavior but he criticizes it nevertheless.

[Xorinite]

A court of history? I looked up that term and got no results, poetic licence?

I have heard some historians who believe there was a historical figure called Jesus, some who don't.

As far as I see the options are; A real man made into a legend, a composite character given traits of many, a real guy, or could be entirely fictitious. personally I don't find enough evidence to make a determination. If I had to guess, it would be one or two, because of similar historical examples.

[Xorinite]

Not that you are necessarily interested in my impressions or thought on the subject lol :)

[DanC9189]

poor little D'Souza, he should feel seriously buthurt after this. Not only does he look rediculous making these non-points but his attempts at jokes get ignored by the audience.

[hopokuk]

D'Souza is a sad nerd and a misguided fool.

[13shadowwolf]

Hitchens completely destroys D'Souza yet again. D'Souza must be Christian, he's a masochist.

[Gidwan]

the point on the women has another interpretation ( though the idea of why they would introduce contradictions if it was a total fabrication is interesting ) namely that the Jesus story parallels, to a rather uncanny degree, the story of Horus - who was discovered resurrected on the third day by three (? I think it was three ?) women and proclaimed that "The Saviour of Humanity has risen"

[VeggieTrunks]

Could it not have been copied from the story of Jesus? Jesus' life was talked about long before he ever came to be so even if this came before Jesus actually lived, there's still the possibility that it was taken from Christianity.

[Gidwan]

What you're claiming is that the Christian doctrine and prophecy predates Christianity and Jesus. While this is possible, and would even be claimed as probably based on the prophecies stated in the Old Testament, the Egyptian religious beliefs predate those texts too as far as I'm aware.

So the only possible explanation along your lines is that god intentionally created a misleading "jesus" story 1000's of years before jesus...why would god do that?

[sonoflipoic]

the old testament is itself a plagarism and a fraud.yahweh is an amalgamation of different canaanite gods and so that makes jesus himself a fraud.

[niinja2]

ca you point me to the evidence that support this

[todore00]

No, Dinesh's point was ridiculous, Hitchens explains in his book exactly his position concerning the historicity of Jesus. If you look on ANY debate between these two, Dinesh ALWAYS brings up exactly the same points and they always get refuted. If you read the couple pages where this is written, then you will find a lot of evidence! I'm not going to dish it out and spend 20 minutes doing it for you.

[niinja2]

anything that hitchens says even as historian is worth 0 credibility with me because he is extremely biased and has already had false claims about things i know to be true.

Dineshes point was not ridicilous because its true. And hitch did not respond to it.

Hitchens also always gives the same points about religion on every debate.

And the point was not whether hitchens refuted dinesh in his book ( which i doubt ) , it was that he did it on this video, which he did not.

[sonoflipoic]

Yes,read the ''ugaritic texts'' to start with.

[alphacause]

Hitchens brings up a good point. Of the many things that we take as historical truths or philosophical truths, many of them don't depend on the actual existence of the person that they are ascribed to. On the other hand, the salvation of humanity through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is dependent on Jesus Christ actually existing, and actually performing the miraculous feats attributed to him.

[bersa888]

Good point.

[beriukay]

You'd think if he resurrected an army of dead people, at least one of them would be literate enough to write about it.

[MartialArtistWannabe]

Right, but as usual, he went on and on about one point, and ignored the rest. He could've easily countered Dinesh's claim that most religious conflicts were actually about land for land's sake. WhenI watch Hitchens debate, I feel like killing myself - I'd like him to address everything, not just the point or points easiest to counter.

[niinja2]

hitchens is a joker and this is how he "wins" debates and "destroys " his opponents.

i agree with d'souza 90% he is the one addressing arguments and destroying hitchens.

"take no thought for tomorow - a central doctrine" ? LOL

No care for family , children, work?

A STRAW MAN ARGUMENT ,bible does not say this.

this is why i learn biology from a biologist not creationist and bible from a priest , not from an atheist.

[bleustilton]

The great thing about these debates is that Hitchens and D'souza seem to get along well. Often Hitchens (rightly) seems to absolutely detest his opponents. These are a bit of fun though.

[VeggieTrunks]

He has a right to detest his opponents? Not sure I understand what you mean by that.

[bleustilton]

Of course he doesn't have to like his opponents. I've heard Hitchens debate a lot of really poor theologians with bizarre premises. It's obvious that he doesn't want to waste his or anybody's time debating Douglas Wilson on beauty as proof of God's existence. That's just stupid, and a really frustrating debate for me in particular (a Christian). Were I debating someone and every counterpoint was an analogy, I wouldn't like him either.

[oskitarrodriguez]

And Hitchens didn´t mentioned something else on his favor, although he didn´t need it; that even if the miths of the bible were true, that would leave open the posibility that the miths of other religions were true also, and that all gods were real. in that case, who is right?

[mgundy]

what's a mith?

[observer75]

LOL. Hitchens reaches higher than Shaq for a rebound.

People who lack critical thinking are mesmerized by presentation, it's an established practice in the advertising industry.

I can listen to what Hitchens is saying without listening to how he is saying it, can you? He expects you to favor stark possibilities over common sense and reason. In Hitchen's mind there is always a way to make it work. It's like sewing Frankenstein together.

[sonofcohen]

It is interesting how many inttelectuals think Hitchens is a terrible philosopher and at best a decent biologist. However, people seem to "worship" everything he says. He is the Televangelist of atheist.

[Ihateryanhume]

Hitchens has never claimed to be a philosopher, and has CERTAINLY never claimed to be a biologist. No one thinks he is either of those things. He is a literary critic and a journalist.

[phenomballer666]

@Ihateryanhume Christopher hitchens is a philosopher, it doesn't matter if doesnt have a degree in the field, that is something that makes philosophy a unique field, you really dont need one.

[prisspross32]

well said i agree mate

[deadacc29343]

...I could argue that, from what little I know of the scholarship, that the roots of the Jesus story are both many and disparate. What's the use, though? Just like Socrates, the religious person, if presented with irrefutable evidence that there was no Jesus, can still fall back and say "the message is worthy." This entire line of thought is meaningless in a debate over the implications of religious practice in the modern world. Whoever wrote the question was in the business of wasting time.

[sonofcohen]

actually, i would respond, that without Jesus, the message is useless.

[polemicbear]

to the peeps below; skepticism has nothing to do with science; skepticism is the belief that certain knowledge on anything cannot be attained, whereas science sets out to discover certain knowledge through experiments and empirical data.

[twtheisen]

Christopher Hitchens is clever, but needs to do a significant amount of research regarding the 12th Dynasty before telling other humans that the Exodus never happened.

Do not look in the 18th, but the 12th Dynasty.

Don't take my word for it, do some research.

- Dothan is where Joseph went to find his brothers and was thrown into a cistern.

- Sesostris I

- Joseph (Mentuhotep)

- Canal Faiyyum is called Bar Yusuf, which means Joseph's canal.

The more you dig, the more you find.

[EternalSkeptic]

twtheisen

there is no archeological evidence for the exodus-

linguistic evidences are

grasping at straws-

[twtheisen]

You have to be willing to look at the evidence, which you do not seem willing to do.

[EternalSkeptic]

twt

You have to be able to evaluate evidence presented and weigh it against the agendas of the presenters-

'devout christian archeologist' is an

oxymoron-

[twtheisen]

Evolutionist Scientists who do not believe in God do not allow God to be part of the experiment, so they are biased in their research.

Creationist Scientists believe in God and research based on the premise that there is a God, so they are biased as well.

We are all biased based on our own personal beliefs, so let's agree to disagree and end this ridiculous discussion.

[EternalSkeptic]

twt

there is no such thing as an 'evolutionist scientist'-

there are scientists who accept TNS-

OTH-there are many examples of devout zealot religious 'scientists' making absurd claims and stretching logic to support their received opinions-

"We are all biased..."

so we should throw up our hands and give up ?

[twtheisen]

There are scientists who believe in evolution and do not believe in God. Therefore, they do not even allow the possibility of God to enter the equation, hence---evolutionist scientist.

We all live in our own realities based on our life experiences. We are all biased.

BACK TO MY ORIGINAL POINT - HUMAN BEINGS ARE WRONG - ALOT. SO, WATCH, READ AND LISTEN WITH SKEPTICISM.

The world is not flat. The evidence and theories were WRONG. RESEARCH ALL SIDES PLEASE, that is it!!!!!

[EternalSkeptic]

twt

"...Therefore, they do not even allow the possibility of God to enter the equation, hence---evolutionist scientist."

so you can read minds ?

I think not-

"..The world is not flat. The evidence and theories were WRONG. "

please don't shout-

caps doesn't make your argument any more true-

what evidence and theories are wrong ?

all of them ?

[twtheisen]

We are getting nowhere.

Just research all sides and possibilities, please.

Just do that, okay.

Sound fair?

I'm done.

[EternalSkeptic]

twt

"Research all sides and possibilities, please.

That is all I am asking for!"

Who are you to ask me to do anything ?

and why on earth would you assume I don't-

or haven't ?

[EternalSkeptic]

twt

"SO, WATCH, READ AND LISTEN WITH SKEPTICISM.

skepticism is the essence of the

scientific method-heard of it ?

skepticism is the antithesis of religion-

[robtul12]

Actually twtheisen, there is a new upcoming PBS documentary that states that the Exodous never occured and that the patriarchs and matriarchs of ancient Judaism are mythical. It is entitiled The Bible's Buried Secrets and will be coming out on Nova November the 18th. Just for your edification.

[twtheisen]

Oh, well since PBS is doing it, then it must be 100% infallible truth.

The producers at PBS are human beings who have their own biased ideas and beliefs.

Everyone knows that PBS promotes evolution, so it does not surprise me that they would show such a film.

Michael Moore does documentaries too, do you believe everything he says as well?

[EternalSkeptic]

twt

"...Everyone knows that PBS promotes evolution, so it does not surprise me that they would show such a film."

hahaha-

the 'Pravada' fallacy-

'..it is well known that christians invent stuff to support their mythologies'

Moore is a self described 'propagandist'-

[twtheisen]

Christianity has not changed. A lot of the original texts and writings are well documented and still available in preservation archives.

Certainly, there are people who change and/or distort Christianity so as to align it with their own personal lifestyle. This does not discredit Christianity, but the individual who is trying to make the change to support their personal decisions and choices.

Science is no different!

Can we be done, now? This is a waste of time!

[EternalSkeptic]

twt

"Christianity has not changed. ..."

ridiculous assertion-you need to study a great deal more if you think this is true-

"Science is no different!..."

uhm-yea-it is-

it's self correcting and admits change in the light of new data-

religion-

not so much-

[twtheisen]

THE PRINCIPLES OF CHRISTIANITY HAVE NOT CHANGED!

Human beings have changed Christianity to fit their lifestyles, but THE BIBLE is still The Bible. The teachings inside the Old Testament and New Testament have not changed.

Thousands of scientists disagree on just about everything everyday, because they all look at data & info. differently based on their own realities.

Hence, human beings in science and religion do the same things---look at things based on their own realities.

[EternalSkeptic]

twt

you don't have to shout-lose the cap locks

'kay ?

google 'council of nice constantine' and start reading-

after you have we'll talk again about

principles before and after-

and then perhaps we'll move on to interpretation of your 'unchanging' book-

sorry-

the two sides are not equal-

pretending they are simply gives credibility to fairy tales for which there is no evidence-

[twtheisen]

I have more important things to do.

Research all sides and possibilities or your experiment is biased and flawed.

Research all sides and possibilities, please.

That is all I am asking for!

Do that.

Just do that, please.

Okay? I'm done.

[EternalSkeptic]

twt

"Research all sides and possibilities, please.

That is all I am asking for!"

Who are you to ask me to do anything ?

and why on earth would you assume I don't-

or haven't ?

You were done before you started-

[robtul12]

Hello again twtheisen, Michael Moore does excellent documentaries. I enjoy them throughly. However, he also does the important thing -- which is providing evidence for what he says. Almost all of moore's documentaries have accompanying books or webpages that have a great deal of evidence to back it up. The evidence is the important thing, not what one chooses or doesn't choose to believe.

[dragoonthief]

WOW

[monachos43]

As soon as Christopher said "That was terrible, Dinesh", I had to give it 5 stars. Fucking love Hitchens.

[mbelma6329]

His works are tough reads. I just purchased THE PROBLEM OF PAIN and you better be ready to use your brain for books such as that and MIRACLES.

Although, some of them cannot be fully understood by the non-believer. I suggest MERE CHRISTIANITY for some genuine Christian apologetics.

[ultraviolet99]

Respect the Hitch. (I always refrain from saying this, but this clip demanded it.)

[josephdrew87]

Like Chris' respect for the surprisingly brilliant C.S. Lewis. Lewis is a so much better apologists than all the shrunken violets like Dinesh, Peter Hitchens and Francis Collins, who Christianity throws up now. Though I must say I do respect Alistair McGrath and Rowan Williams.

[ofssk]

I like William Lane Craig great hes a great debater and would love to see him and Hitchens go at it

[felandath]

U must see the debate the Hitch had with Alistair McGrath. It was gruesome! The Hitch totally destroyed him.

[josephdrew87]

Hmmm, yeah you're right. McGrath's not a great debater, but his arguments are quite good. In the same vain as Lewis', but without the logical or reasoning quality. Similarly to archbishop Rowan Williams and Bishop Richard Harries, McGrath is a true moderate, who for instance (unlike Dinesh) would never claim that there not being a God meant there is no morality. All three are more like Christian deists who believe in the ressurection than actual theists.

[KajiCarson]

Hitchens shines in this segment.

[rnorththorn]

Yes.Hitchens Rules.

[kakahass]

amen hitchens

[felandath]

Brilliant start by the Hitch - "That was terrible Dinesh"!

[Ellesime89]

I was thinking the same thing before he said that.