Christopher Hitchens vs. Dinesh D'Souza, debate at CU-Boulder (Part 3 of 13)

Chris Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza debating religion at CU-Boulder on Monday January 26th.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Hitchens
• D'Souza
• Religion
• Christianity
• Atheism

[emailgarbage20]

Hitchens says that "one of my very few pleasures is crowing over the misfortunes of other people." He goes on to say that he'd be religious if he thought it were true that he could perceive the sufferings of the damned in the afterlife. How is this an argument for atheism?

[deBeuk]

"How is this an argument for atheism? "

He didn't present it as an argument for atheism.

[adstanra]

Dinesh needs to stop mixing definitions. The universe is not rational. The universe is not a mind. But it is quite logical that our minds would evolve to be equipt to see order in the universe.

[Athaeus]

And that's not to mention quantum mechanics, which is anything BUT what we would percieve as "rational" and "law abiding". It's still science though, due to mathematical evidence.

I get the feeling D'Souza is full of ignorance and deceit.

[PaulCynic]

The problem with your question is that it implies that this idea is an atheistic one; as if atheists somehow think of children differently than non-athiests do. Hitchens has a wife and kids... so what's your point?

Also taking point with your statement below on homosexuals being detrimental to population size. Nope, wrong, dumb. Several of my gay friends are now in their 30's and have children of their own. The ability and desire to have children runs deeper than who you fall in love with.

[Zdrazy]

Yeah, but I like to argue my points in a way that actually makes some form of sense.

[D33veeoss]

You're assuming that a "god" of some sort is making the pizza himself.

I wonder if it's like making a wish.

I doubt "god" even made the designs for this planet much less has to micromanage it.

Solves the question anyway.

[Zdrazy]

An example would be trying to balance a plate on a stick. If a pre-existing force, such as gravity, is a factor then you'll have to do fine tuning to make the plate stay still. However, if there're no natural laws and I'm all powerful, I could easily make the plate stand without the need to balance it against pre-existing natural forces.

[Zdrazy]

I've always thought that the 'fine-tuning' argument, in fact, contradicted the theistic perspective. An all-powerful being could make a universe or life exist according to whatever laws it wanted. The idea that a god had to fine tune the universe suggests that there are pre-existing laws or forces around which the universe must be tuned. This idea is contrary to that of an all-powerful god that exists before anything else.

[Zdrazy]

Similarly, it makes sense that all life that exists in the universe now would not exist if the natural laws were different. All presently existing life has come into being in accordance with the natural laws, so it stands to reason that this life would not exist if those fundamental laws were changed or different.

[Zdrazy]

There's nothing strange about the fact that our minds correspond to the surrounding natural order. Firstly, our survival as a species is entirely dependant on our understand of the world around us and our interaction with it. We have come into existance in accordance with the same natural laws that govern the universe, thus it's hardly surprising that we are 'tuned' to them, rather than everything coming into existance haphazardly by varied laws.

[TainoRebelde]

Ah, a "non-sequitur" because it does not follow your stupid fatalistic non-rationalistic bias...

If your mother followed your philosophy, you would not exist. Do us a favor, eh? Since we could use a few less human beings on earth, why don't you jump off a cliff, Mr. non-sequitur.

Point being- (and I don't expect you to be able to rationalize) that neither (as you say) "that we should ALL STOP HAVING CHILDREN" nor homosexuality is conducive to the long term sustainment of the human race- moron.

[EwePeopleRsheeple]

What a ridiculous non sequitur, but if insist on a response, people are so fucking stupid that we should ALL stop having children...

[TainoRebelde]

I have a question for you-

Some environmentalists in Europe and America are claiming that having more than 2 children is immoral and damaging to humanity. They want penalties to be placed upon families that have more than 2 children... Do you believe this to be "family bashing?" And if not, how would you say that their requests will be beneficial for humanity?