PDA

View Full Version : The GOD Debate.: Hitchens vs Dsouza



MMC
08-18-2012, 08:48 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIrf0khB2Bg

The Debate on GOD between Hitchens the Atheist and Dsouza. This is Part 1 as I will break it down rather than throw in an hour and more of Debate. So this way points can be discussed from each Part rather than from the the whole sum of the movie.

MMC
08-18-2012, 08:49 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HYyO_Q4jAk

Part Two.

MMC
08-18-2012, 08:50 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNj2Pc9OoQE

Part 3.

MMC
08-18-2012, 08:51 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zAxE695G8g

Part 4.

MMC
08-18-2012, 08:53 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6qhTx2rTI4

Part 5.....and I am going to break for a second. This will definately add to the hits we get to this site.

Peter1469
08-18-2012, 09:26 AM
Dsouza tore Hitchens up and revealed that Hitchens is not so smart after all.

MMC
08-18-2012, 09:59 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e91sM31r8ig

So Far I would say so. Part 6

MMC
08-18-2012, 10:01 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnNr9POqV7M

Part 7.

MMC
08-18-2012, 10:02 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nv6am8BUa50

Part 8.

Chris
08-18-2012, 10:03 AM
Dsouza tore Hitchens up and revealed that Hitchens is not so smart after all.

Oh, well, here I thought the debate was about the existence of God.

MMC
08-18-2012, 10:03 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmKN5hzV4N0

Part 9.

MMC
08-18-2012, 10:05 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erpew_Y6aQU

Talking bout Primates here. Part 10.

MMC
08-18-2012, 10:06 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fu0rDeuH3vo

Part 11.

MMC
08-18-2012, 10:07 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tx_XUX4auX8

Part 12. :shocked:

MMC
08-18-2012, 10:09 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=os8ZKqgP6JI

Part 13.....and the final piece. Looks like an hour and half debate between these two. Hope ya enjoy them Chris.

Peter1469
08-18-2012, 11:39 AM
Oh, well, here I thought the debate was about the existence of God.

It is.

Chris
08-18-2012, 11:45 AM
It is.

If it were, then ad hom like "Dsouza tore Hitchens up and revealed that Hitchens is not so smart after all" has no relevance to whether God exists.

But the debate is not about God but rather religion and whether it's good or evil.

Peter1469
08-18-2012, 03:49 PM
If it was over your head....

Great debate. Hitchens demonstrated the limits of his intellect.

MMC
08-18-2012, 03:52 PM
Naturally they listed it that way to get Hits.....whether the issue was Specifically about GOD or Not. But it was a good Debate and I think Dsouza owned him most of the time. thas not to take anything away from Hitchens. Who despite his belief with God. Was a very intelligent individual.

Chris
08-18-2012, 04:09 PM
If it was over your head....

Great debate. Hitchens demonstrated the limits of his intellect.

More ad hom. Nothing about the debate.

MMC
08-18-2012, 04:11 PM
Sheer Deflection Chris? Looks like it must have been something about the Debate.....they had it listed several different ways. How many TV stations Carried it?

Chris
08-18-2012, 04:16 PM
Take the last video for instance, though any will do.

D'Souza mistakenly argues Nietzsche's "God is dead" is a criticism of atheism. Hitchens ignores it without rebuttal. So, I suppose it looks like a point for D'Souza. Right, except Nietzsche wasn't criticizing atheism but post-modern Christianity.

MMC
08-18-2012, 04:20 PM
Heya Pete check it out.....Seems Dsouza and Hitchens were going at it all Across the Country. Here was another of theirs at the University of Colorado.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZFv6ccC8is

This Debate was Titled.....What's so Great About GOD.

Atheism vs Religion. This was part one of this Debate.

Looks Like they Debating across the Country and all the local newspapers and local stations where they were Tuning in.....huh?

MMC
08-18-2012, 04:23 PM
Take the last video for instance, though any will do.

D'Souza mistakenly argues Nietzsche's "God is dead" is a criticism of atheism. Hitchens ignores it without rebuttal. So, I suppose it looks like a point for D'Souza. Right, except Nietzsche wasn't criticizing atheism but post-modern Christianity.


Well I thought it would be something that would interest ya and some others to See these guys and what they use as talking points etc etc. I figured you would know something as it leans in your Direction. Sort of.

U know me Chris Trying to get activity going. Let me know if ya wants me to put up the rest of these ones or someone else can. If they would like to use them for a discussion. :wink:

Chris
08-18-2012, 04:27 PM
Take part 5. In it D'Souza responds to Hitchens' challenge to name one idea unique to Christianity. D'Souza responds with the principle of reciprocity preached by Jesus. But he forgets this Golden or Silver Rule has been expressed in most every culture known to man, including cultures with no god. D'Souza argues it requires God as justification because it serves no evolutionary advantage. Yet all one need do is read Ridley to the contrary in The Origins of Virtue: Human Instincts and the Evolution of Cooperation on the evolutionary advantages of the reciprocal nature of much behavior in the animal kingdom. Reciprocity is the basic principle of libertarianism and free-market cooperation.


On edit, there's also something odd about D'Souza's understanding of evolution, it is very Christian. When he speaks of evolutionary advantage he speaks in terms of long-term if not designed survival. But evolution doesn't work that way, it is not designed, it has no direction. D'Souza's view is not derived from scientific understanding but his very Christian view that history is linear, has a beginning and an end.

MMC
08-18-2012, 04:32 PM
Chris.....do most agnostics and atheists apply the same prinicples say like with Aliens or the Premise of life Elsewheres out there? Would you think they would lean more to that theory over that of man made religions?

Chris
08-18-2012, 04:34 PM
But none of the debate is about God at all, just the pros and cons of religion.

D'Souza in another debate with Hitchens some years ago conceded man cannot know God. Not surprising, as famous Christians from Augustine to Aquinas to others moderns tell us this, and it is common in Eastern religions, Tao Teh Ching for example. Thus, if one cannot know God, one cannot discuss or debate God, cannot prove or disprove God, but instead only man's conceptions of God, iow, religion.

MMC
08-18-2012, 04:37 PM
But none of the debate is about God at all, just the pros and cons of religion.

D'Souza in another debate with Hitchens some years ago conceded man cannot know God. Not surprising, as famous Christians from Augustine to Aquinas to others moderns tell us this, and it is common in Eastern religions, Tao Teh Ching for example. Thus, if one cannot know God, one cannot discuss or debate God, cannot prove or disprove God, but instead only man's conceptions of God, iow, religion.

Ah, I.....C what you are saying now? Should I change the Wording to the Thread then? Do ya want me to throw up that debate I just showed Pete? Is that the one you are talking about?

Chris
08-18-2012, 04:40 PM
Chris.....do most agnostics and atheists apply the same prinicples say like with Aliens or the Premise of life Elsewheres out there? Would you think they would lean more to that theory over that of man made religions?

No one knows, not science, not religion, not fiction.

Not knowing is agnostic.

When it comes to God, we're all agnostic, not knowing. Theists choose to believe, have faith, while atheists choose not to, lack faith.

Lacking faith entails nothing else.

Chris
08-18-2012, 04:42 PM
Ah, I.....C what you are saying now? Should I change the Wording to the Thread then? Do ya want me to throw up that debate I just showed Pete? Is that the one you are talking about?

I think anyone who's thought about the matter the least bit deeply understands the argument is not over God but man's conceptions of God.

MMC
08-18-2012, 05:11 PM
I think anyone who's thought about the matter the least bit deeply understands the argument is not over God but man's conceptions of God.

Okay.....and as to my other questions then? Or shall we just let this thread die out, like the Rest of the others ones that are up now too?

Chris
08-18-2012, 08:21 PM
Thought I answered your questions.

Happy to discuss the videos but not sure I see anyone else referring to content from them.

Goldie Locks
08-18-2012, 08:32 PM
Well, I totally agree with D'souza. I think he totally destroyed Hitchens, who BTW is a total ass and not very bright. Your typical atheist who thinks he knows all the answers. I love the way D'Souza brought his arguments without the bible..all based on secular examples.

Chris
08-19-2012, 11:00 AM
Well, I totally agree with D'souza. I think he totally destroyed Hitchens, who BTW is a total ass and not very bright. Your typical atheist who thinks he knows all the answers. I love the way D'Souza brought his arguments without the bible..all based on secular examples.

Misunderstanding of secular ideas, like the principle of reciprocity and evolution as I pointed out.

I'm curious how you feel about his defense of Islam and Muslims in part 8. This is a consistent position on his part, as seen as well in his debate with Robert Spencer:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLB238162DD227435F&v=r-G-GT2gMoE&feature=player_embedded#!

Goldie Locks
08-19-2012, 02:24 PM
Misunderstanding of secular ideas, like the principle of reciprocity and evolution as I pointed out.

I'm curious how you feel about his defense of Islam and Muslims in part 8. This is a consistent position on his part, as seen as well in his debate with Robert Spencer:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLB238162DD227435F&v=r-G-GT2gMoE&feature=player_embedded#!

Are you talking about the suicide bombers...sorry don't remember what else...please expound.

Chris
08-19-2012, 04:21 PM
Are you talking about the suicide bombers...sorry don't remember what else...please expound.

D'Souza is well known for defending Islam and Muslims in general, he takes a moderate view, that is, a view that most Muslims are moderates, that's what in that segment he was debating Hitchens whose view is much closer to Robert Spencer's.

MMC
08-19-2012, 04:49 PM
D'Souza is well known for defending Islam and Muslims in general, he takes a moderate view, that is, a view that most Muslims are moderates, that's what in that segment he was debating Hitchens whose view is much closer to Robert Spencer's.

That is where I would disagree with Dsouza. On the Issue that Muslims are Moderates. I would say they are Moderates when forced to deal with those outside their circles in which they feel they are weaker amongst All round. But not if they are the strongest on point. Then it is a different story. As we have been shown thru History!

Chris
08-19-2012, 04:56 PM
Right, but the point relative the debate is D'Souza's conception of God embraces God of Abraham be it in Judaic, Christian or Islamic form. Certainly everyone realizes Hitchens' God is not Great is a play on Allahu Akbar and an attack on Islam primarily, and in that segment D'Souza defends it.

Goldie Locks
08-19-2012, 05:39 PM
Yes, I would disagree also. I'm sure there are some moderate Muslims or Muslims who only subscribe to the 5 pillars of Islam. My contention is though that even these moderate Muslims can or will become radical if push comes to shove. If they are put in a position and have to choose between their religion or doing something the Imam tells them and what society may tell them...almost all will side with Islam. So, for example a known terrorist comes to their door and says give me shelter, hide me, most would and would not call authorities. I agree with D'souza on why he thinks God exists and his reasons. Not sure if that is how he would describe it, but I agree with that.

Chris
08-19-2012, 07:46 PM
I agree with D'souza on why he thinks God exists and his reasons.

What segment does he give a reasoned argument for the existence of God? Isn't God a matter of faith?

Goldie Locks
08-19-2012, 07:55 PM
What segment does he give a reasoned argument for the existence of God? Isn't God a matter of faith?

Like I said, I don't think I worded it correctly, but I agree with him that people of faith outweigh those who don't have faith. I also have believed for years that our morals come from God. I have had this debate many times and atheists always say no it does not, but have nothing to back it up. That little inner voice about what is right and wrong come from God. Our conscious comes from God. They say it comes from society or their parents or some other convoluted reasoning...but ultimately it comes from God who gave us the 10 commandments which in turn gave us the Bill of Rights.

Goldie Locks
08-19-2012, 07:57 PM
I sometimes use the example of murder. If there were no people laws against murder then you would commit murder? They say of course not it is wrong...but I say why is it wrong?...etc...etc.

Chris
08-19-2012, 08:32 PM
Well, I can't argue with your faith and beliefs.

My belief, if you will, is pretty well captured by this short paragraph from Rothbard's The Ethics of Liberty (http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/one.asp):
The believer in a rationally established natural law must, then, face the hostility of both camps: the one group sensing in this position an antagonism toward religion; and the other group suspecting that God and mysticism are being slipped in by the back door. To the first group, it must be said that they are reflecting an extreme Augustinian position which held that faith rather than reason was the only legitimate tool for investigating man's nature and man's proper ends. In short, in this fideist tradition, theology had completely displaced philosophy. The Thomist tradition, on the contrary, was precisely the opposite: vindicating the independence of philosophy from theology and proclaiming the ability of man's reason to understand and arrive at the laws, physical and ethical, of the natural order. If belief in a systematic order of natural laws open to discovery by man's reason is per se anti-religious, then anti-religious also were St. Thomas and the later Scholastics, as well as the devout Protestant jurist Hugo Grotius. The statement that there is an order of natural law, in short, leaves open the problem of whether or not God has created that order; and the assertion of the viability of man's reason to discover the natural order leaves open the question of whether or not that reason was given to man by God. The assertion of an order of natural laws discoverable by reason is, by itself, neither pro- nor anti-religious.
I think we, you and I, can agree these natural laws, morality, exist. We, flawed in our reasoning as we are, cannot know its origin, whether God or nature, or both, though we can have faith one way or the other.

I think, too, we can agree if faith leads one to be a better person with regard to interacting with others, how could one argue against it.


As for murder, laws, divine nor positive, prevent it, merely punish actions deemed murder because they cannot be justified or are judge unjustified. I could justify killing someone by showing it was in self-defense, which is a natural law justification going back to the principle of reciprocity that Hitchens and D'Souza debated.

IMO, following Arkes First Things: An Inquiry into the First Principles of Morals and Justce, morality is not expressed in laws but in how we justify our actions towards others.