Comments on: Hitchens Versus the Christians (Video)

By: Modusoperandi

Modusoperandi — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 19:51:18 +0000

Wow. Craig used the Ontological Argument. I thought he normally avoided it because it sucked (The Argument from Superior Imagination). It turns out that he normally doesn’t use it because he doesn’t have time.

By: “When I was an Atheist”: The latest trend in Christian apologetics « How good is that?

Tue, 21 Apr 2009 20:51:54 +0000

[...] new (or credible) to say at all—least of all when faced with the formidable debating skills of Xopher Hitchens, on the fundamental differences between rationalism and superstition, at a recent Christian book [...]

By: lola

lola — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 09:37:19 +0000

Hitchens flops from one inflammatory statement to the next, often with a lack of coherent argument. He also often fails to even address the particulars of the theists arguments. Hitchens does not like the way some people believe that God did/does things. He cannot accept religious ideas, and in this particular instance, Christian ideas. For instance, he rants about a god who would create people sick and brutish and cruel and then tell them that they need to get cured. Simultaneously, he’s left with his opinion that humans are sick and brutish and cruel…but in his scheme there is no cure at all and there is no god to blame. IF there is a god, God isn’t doing things the way Hitchens would, and this is intolerable for Hitchens. And therefore Hitchens dismisses all religion. Therein lies the crux of Hitchens platform: a fundamental disgust for the way things ARE; and if there is a god, HE is the one to blame; and therefore Hitchens isn’t going to believe. This is an emotionally-driven belief, and, I believe, the reason why he fails to fairly dispute particulars and instead resort to inflammatory statements of outrage and disgust.

By: Kyle

Kyle — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 22:30:30 +0000

I made it as far as Lee’s tired something comes from nothing.

And I agree with whoever said I shouldn’t shut down after their arguments because they do the same thing. But, my dear, you have to draw the line somewhere.

By: TalentedChimp

TalentedChimp — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 15:06:03 +0000

It’s ironic that one of the arguments used by some theists is that one cannot be sure that reality can be interpreted absolutely, i.e. the empirical method cannot be tested for validity. Yet they bang on knowing through personal experience their god and revelation, etc. as being properly basic beliefs.

Eating their cake and having it too?

By: Jeff

Jeff — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 21:21:32 +0000

As religiosity is predominately rooted in emotion, I think Hitchens’ strategy is to poke holes in the “love affair” that Christians have with their gØd. Or maybe he doesn’t consciously do that but that is just the way he relates to religion. Dawkins and Harris, on the other hand, take a much more cerebral and detached approach to discussing religion.

By: Jim B

Jim B — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 08:32:49 +0000

I watched the whole thing. I’d say Hitchens failed. As an atheist, I agreed with most of what he was saying, of course, but I doubt he changed the mind of any Christian.

The apologist who noted that Hitchen’s answer to just about every issue was: God is a peeping tom, God allows bad things to happen, I don’t want a God like that! Said much more eruditely of course.

Points to the guy who made the fizzy soda analogy; at least he was trying to make an original argument. Hitchens didn’t answer all that clearly. He should have started with, “Yes, we are the artifacts of natural processes with no hidden soul. We’re just a incomprehensibly more complex than a quart of soda, though.” He could have pointed out how a single base pair coding error can, if it occurs at the wrong spot, result in non-viable human beings. Things are that mechanistic.

By: Pseudonym

Pseudonym — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 05:28:28 +0000

@hoverFrog:

Surely they have a nuanced and intelligent opinion between them that they can use?

Not in this panel, no. Besides, they have to keep up with Hitchens’ lack of nuanced, intelligent opinions.

By: Emily

Emily — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 00:23:20 +0000

This was painful in so many ways.
First off, I could barely believe that 99% of the refutations from the theists were coming from SCRIPTURE. How was that supposed to enter a logical conversation with an atheist, who contends that the bible is practically rubbish? Secondly, I agree with those who have commented on Hitchen’s lack of coherency in answering the theists’ questions. I wish he had tackled their ontological arguments about the creation of the universe, the existence of morality, etc., much deeper. It did seem that his overall argument was something like, “Religion has done A, B and C. That’s why it’s bad.” Although his points were true, I wish he had tackled their arguments for theism with more scientific facts instead of philosophical rhetoric. It is always a joy to listen to him though… I just think little was accomplished, sadly.

By: josh

josh — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 22:51:33 +0000

the mountain dew vs. dr. pepper argument was pretty ridiculous. that guy kept bringing up the worst arguments that i refuted by screaming at my computer screen, i just kept waiting for hitchens to take advantage of it.

also same with the fine-tuning argument. there are so many other plausible explanations for the fine-tuning that instill in me more awe and excitement about the universe than a “god did it” response does.