look as much I disagree with C. Hitchen's on politics and his condescending tone...he without a doubt 100% won this debate.
i think he had better form and dominated the stage. you'll notice they never shut his mic but they shut his bros mic during the his time. peter ate his breakfast on iraq, and held it up for a while, chris gained some points at the end, but peter had good responses half the time, and was a much bigger person, allowed his opponent more time, allowed the audience more time, and was much less obnoxious and self absorbed, which says a lot by itself.
if you were looking for a debate where hitch is just completely schooled and out of his league on form, tactics, etc., naturally you'd watch him debate craig. but peter's less formal style added a human element of genuineness. i wouldn't say chris won here overall, but i guess our overall biases enter into the picture here.
LOL! I see we simply disagree over who is right! Even in this debate (which I have seen in the past) I think Hitchens wins! He is a goof but on God I just agree so it's hard for me to notice his flaws in style of debate.
I just went through your comments and posts..... the atheist prayer... jesus needs to bitchslap people? HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHH You're a certified religious kook. Not even worth arguing with. Might as well hang out on a website for Twilight fans and listen to them bitch about werewolves being worse than vampires.
No train to Stockholm.
you went through my comments and posts? well that's a pretty lame thing to do. try hard, are we?
well if u tried harder, you'd see the HL mencken avatar and the nietzsche passage from zarathustra in my profile quote.
u speak to soon, you presume, for u are just a boy.
I took you for something different than what you were with your Atheist Prayer poem, then thought I had forgotten Poe's Law at an inopportune time when first seeing this post. But I have to say that I have been wrong twice now, mea culpa, mea magna culpa.
I've got some general disagreements with where I think you are coming from, but on the specific case of Christoper Hitchens, yes, he was an absolute man-child.
“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.” - G.K. Chesterton
i'm uncommitted either way hell, i am trying to seek and find the truth. i think there is a hard line, on one side nietzsche is the truth -- subjectivism, uncertainty of all rational truths, and the person as the center and gravity of all values, and on the other side -- theism, order, logos, the soundness of rational truth, etc. i just don't know which is true!
And also neither.
People waste so much energy chasing certainty. Like with women, I let the certainty chase me.
“Although it was the middle of winter, I finally realized that, within me, summer was inextinguishable.” — Albert Camus
But what if Truth is a woman, what then?
Truth is a hungry tigress, and she is patient,
Truth is a river, and I am a river rock,
Truth is a naked beauty, beckoning,
Truth is a hammer, lying on the ground.
Good debate re two propositions:
~ The invasion of Iraq was wrong; and
~ God does not exist.
Christopher Hitchens is among those (including Glenn Beck) whom I liked, but less and less the more I listened or read. Regardless, may his soul rest in peace.
When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir
Just ask Ozzy Osbourne, or consult Isaiah 57:20.
Atheist bashing and ultra-bias showing. We get it, a lot of your are Christians and anyone who isn't should be downvoted and criticized for not being brought up with the same fairy tales as you.
Heh, your bitter tone betrays you. You sound defeated before the discussion even begins.
Look at the comments and votes on that video. Everyone thinks Peter got crushed, and anyone who takes up the argument FOR Christianity or religion in the era of the internet is going to be wrong. There is too much information at everyone's fingertips to even begin a debate about religion being true.
You want to show me at what point Peter won this debate? Or even made a point that Christopher couldn't easily dismiss or counter? Give me the minute mark.
Did you just cite youtube comments as an authority?
You think you're better than the people watching debates on youtube when you're commenting on the same video? How ignorant. You're just as uneducated as everyone else with a faith based opinion.
I wasn't commenting on it. I was replying to your comment. I just posted it.
When you're the one using it?
And the flooding the comments with adjective and insults, not even one point made in the debate? That is not making a point, that is whining and pointing fingers over nothing.
I didn't criticize youtube as a video sharing platform, I pointed out that you cited youtube comments as a source of authority. That was hilarious, and I thank you for it.
You claim I flooded the comments with adjectives. What's wrong with adjectives. You say insults, but which insults. You deny I made a point, but that's a specious tactic, anyone can deny anything.
You don't even have a grasp of the rudiments of logical discussion, it appears. Hence you are on the run, defensive, fleeting toward wild claims, not steady on your feet. You're falling over!
Going through your posts LukeO, the only person that I see whining and pointing fingers is you. You have a pretty massive inferiority complex if you think that Bill3 was inferring that posts here are superior to those on youtube. He was probably referring to the actual scholars who have studied this versus the legions of drones who simply believe everything that Richard Dawkins tells them.
Level with us LukeO, did you go into convulsions while mourning the loss of your beloved Christoper Hitchens?
hey go easy on Luke its wrong to kick an man while he's down let him lick his wounds, they are grievous. ; P
Is that an insult to Hitch? Lol It would be below me to even talk to a nutcase like you if so.
Do you mean Chris "Exactly Wrong At Every Key Point" Hitchens? Yah, that guy. The one in the debate who couldn't even resist interrupting everyone. The lonely, dissolute, drunken buffoon. The child on the stage. George W. Bush's court jester. The conceited ape. In all his glory.
The socialist twerp in his youth, the neoconservative in his impotent adulthood, the guy who has to fix his hair every 20 seconds. That's the very man to whom I refer. The unreflective, vain, self conscious, popularity chasing, boy child... Pwned by his little brother.
Got something to say?
Yeah, he was a marxist/socialist who admitted that capitalism and markets were the best cure for poverty. So what if he drank? he was still 10 times more intelligent than you are. Hemingway was a drunk. So was Thojmas Paine. How many books have you written? How many articles have you had published? How many people have listened to you debate and overwhelmingly supported your argument? Hitchens' lectures on free speech, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, the history of the catholic church and on morality are light years ahead of anything you have the ability to come up with. I guarantee it. He was a neocon on foreign policy, no doubt, but that is hardly uncommon for people who live in DC to latch onto within the think tanks of foreign policy.
Well the drinking thing was a pot shot. But he was much my intellectual inferior, and not much impressive to serious thinkers. He was a barely matured product of some kind of 18th century rationalism, unripened atheism of the Voltaire variety. Almost like he was born before the French revolution, or before Bolshevism, or Nietzsche, or evolutionary psychology.
I considered him wrong on nearly everything. He had engaged in some debates, but was a poor student of rhetoric, used cheap ploys, pandered to the crowd, displayed insecurity before the audiences applause, couldn't really hang when it came to strict logic. He managed to be on the wrong side of nearly every intellectual current at each historical juncture, almost as though it were an instinct.
His huge personal flaws and clownish behavior on the stage indicate his lack of maturity past a sophomoric level. He went to debates unprepared with even a cursory acquaintance with the other side, merely asserting his devotion to his own confused faith.
He was a poor substitute for a man.
For any of those claims?
He's a student of the enlightenment, of revolution and of mental emancipation. His trotskyite and marxist education was all but faded by the time he was a public figure. What personal behavior are you talking about? What confused faith? You sound like a scorned religious person, the very kind who go on and on about a person and never about what they said. He was right about religion, he was right about the sexes, he was right about henry kissinger, he was right about the clintons, he was right about the political class. Give me one example of him not "hanging" with strict logic, show me the debate. I guarantee you he won it by a landslide and the only ones attacking him instead of his argument thought any different.
He never grew out of his trotskyite/jacobin emotional phase, that's why he died an unrepentant neoconservative Bush booster, supporter of the iraq war, and male feminist of the single variety.
his hostility to religion betrayed a basic lack of understanding of religion, even from a purely evolutionary perspective. serious scholars like david sloan wilson understand religion from the naturalistic position, and do not have a childish faith in the perfectibility of mankind.
hitchens' faith consisted in the story of Man shackled by organized religion from his true nature of goodness and freedom, which is a centuries old notion that has no currency in modernity.
any serious thinker today who accepts naturalism has to have an evolutionary psych understanding of human nature, where religion is an adaptive mechanism for group cohesion and necessary to overcome individual nihilism and moral vacuum.
everything hitch would attribute to religion would actually be a natural attribute of human nature -- cruelty, violence, deception, proneness to accept hierarchy and fall in line, status competition, greed, political maneuvering, irrationality in beliefs.
they all afflict and plague secular society equally or more so and are political phenomenon rooted in human nature.
none of hitch's moral positions hold on a modern naturalism that accepts evolution, whether it be his egalitarianism, his Bushesque democracy worship, his trotskyite permanent revolution childishness. its historically and scientifically refuted.
he also was just totally wrong on most of the historical facts, as a cursory reading of a real historian like will durant would reveal. his facts were just old polemic and exploded myths from the same era has his ideology.
by the late 19th century and early 20th, no one really took seriously the kinds of ideas he clung to.
and this is all if Naturalism is true.
logically speaking, he was completely spanked on the metaphysical and philosophical debate over the foundations of materialism and scientism in debate with william craig for example.
he just took his materialism for granted as a given and assumed scientific materialism was some kind of self proving construct, not subject to the strictures of philosophical and formally logical truth.
he never faced any hard truths that contradicted his viewpoint, never challenged any truly sacred modern dogmas of political correctness, never defended the genuinely persecuted, unpopular points of view, never attacked any truly powerful class or ideology.
he was just a fake rebel and a preening spotlight seeker.
Don't feed the pandas. Ever.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: