Hitchens vs D'Souza

The debate last 1.5 hrs, but spellbinding.
This is the first time I have seen Dinesh in action, and he is the best I have ever seen going up against Hitchens.

http://www.tothesource.org/index.htm

SPeedy, is D'Souza Catholic that you know of?
The guy is bright and very nimble on his feet.

[GenX]

Yes, D'Souza is a Catholic.

You should search around Amazon. He has some wonderful books. Also, he has a list of book recommendations you may find interesting, too, ranging from the religious to the political.

I first heard of D'Souza as some political prodigy in the Reagan administration. Since then, I've been reading his work in "National Review" for years.

I've no doubt he was more than enough 'foe' for Hitchens. I've been waiting for this video since it was announced they were going toe-to-toe.


"I seem to have gotten under the skin of every aging hippie, every depressed post-Marxist kook, every radical feminist who has hung out in academic enclaves. I've gotten used to the phenomenon of being heckled by people twice my age."

-Dinesh D'Souza

[GenX]

Falwell: Before the Millenium (1984, biography)

The Catholic Classics (1986)

My Dear Alex: Letters from the KGB (1987, epistolary novel)

Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus (1991, nonfiction)

The End of Racism: Principles for a Multiracial Society (1995, nonfiction)

Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader (1997, biography)

Virtue of Prosperity: Finding Values in an Age of Techno-Affluence (2001, nonfiction)

What's So Great About America (2002, nonfiction)

Letters to a Young Conservative (2002, epistolary novel)

What's So Great About Christianity (2006)

Enjoy the debate. Hitchens is like a burnt out piece of charcoal next to this bright light.

[GenX]

Yikes! I hope no one ever refers to me as a "burnt out piece of charcoal" LOL

I noticed it is taking a while to download, so I'll download it now and watch it this afternoon.

Can't wait.



I must be getting old...I just said I "can't wait" for a religious debate.

[GenX]

Wow! Hitchens left with tail tucked firmly between legs!

The look of desperation/exasperation on his face during the questioning sessions was priceless.

Wasn't that a delicious moment when D'Souza spanked him for blaming Christianity for the mass murders under atheism?

[GenX]

Hitchens was beat then, and knew it. D'Souza's point was so spot-on it left Hitch speechless.

And think about how much sense it made. Hitchens went after that old and tired line that "Hitler was a Catholic"...and on and on. We see that line of argument on here quite a bit, too. It tells me the Atheists are basically a one trick pony.

I thought the best part is when D'Souza said Atheism is not a movement of the mind, but a moral movement (in the sense it finds moral restrictions distasteful and impossible to live under).

If Hitchens is a smart man, he'll kindly reject D'Souza's next invitation to debate.

[Return of Too Many Daves]

I know this is old ground, but you keep leading me here. You can't group atheists together like that. Whatever the merits of grouping people together by what they believe, does it really make sense to group people together by what they do NOT believe? I do believe that most atheists are not anti-religion though, so to say that atheists are just one trick ponies is naive.

Exactly. Otherwise how does one explain the energy wasted in fighting 'unicorns' or 'toothfairies'. I feel a quote coming on..

Romans 1:18-20 18 ¶ The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-- his eternal power and divine nature-- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Return of Too Many Daves</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I know this is old ground, but you keep leading me here. You can't group atheists together like that. Whatever the merits of grouping people together by what they believe, does it really make sense to group people together by what they do NOT believe? I do believe that most atheists are not anti-religion though, so to say that atheists are just one trick ponies is naive. </div></div>

The ones that run to the "But Hitler was Catholic" line are indeed one trick ponies.

http://www.tothesource.org/10_23_2007/12.jpg

One of these guys does not look happy.

I predict (you heard it here first) that Hitchens will milk his book tour and debate circuit for all he can get. When his shelf life runs out, he will convert to Christianity, write another book, and do it all over again! What an outrageous idea, eh?

[GenX]

Hitchens would make a perfect modern-day Paul ("Hitch, Hitch, why do you persecute me?")

Of course, I'm pretty sure God thought of that a bit before I did.

Back in Paul's day, where there could be no ulterior motive to convert, and where being a Christian meant persecution, he had trouble enough convincing people of his sincerity and apostleship.

Today in a North American context, convincing people of his conversion would be nigh impossible, especially if there was a book deal that accompanied the conversion.

[1337]

Well I am watching the debate. And I am curious.

He mentioned that Ahteism is resonsible for most of the mass murders in the world.

He mentioned Hitler and Stalin. They we're not atheists were they?

[Return of Too Many Daves]

Ahh yes that old chestnut. Atheism is responsible. Haw isiotic. However, it is usually a response to "religion is responsible for all the worlds evils". I don't know which line of argument came first, but I have come to the conclusion they are both equally puerile. The reulting debate follows "he said it first, nurr nurr", "no he said it first".

Man is capable of great evil, be they theist or atheist. Of course evil often lurks in institutions, corrupting their power. And the church is one such institution.

Equally it is a fallacy that morality does not exist without religion. Morality or immorality for that matter can exist alonside theism, or atheism.

[GenX]

Yes, the Church is the epitome of evil.

[1337]

It isn't the cause of the church, or religion. It is the cause of man, and their will and ability to do so!

[Return of Too Many Daves]

T-Pot, that is what I said. Speedy just reads what he wants to.

Of course, you have to argue this in context. Hitchens whole thesis is that religion poisons everything, and he is the one who fires the old chestnut about how religious wars and the crusade and the witch hunts have killed so many..

And yet the opposite is true.

T-pot, Stalin was the head of a communist state which was institutionalized atheism.

And then TMD says: Equally it is a fallacy that morality does not exist without religion.

Of course that is a fallacy. Building Strawmen is also fallacious. No one that I have ever heard says that.

The actual argument asserts that atheism cannot explain why morality exists. The evolutionary model only guesses as to why.
Of course it exists, in all kinds of believers and non-believers alike.

The question is Why does it exist?

[Return of Too Many Daves]

We'll have to agree to disagree, I have frequently seen it said, on this board no less, that morality does not exist without religion.

The evolutionary model is the best explanation and makes a good deal of sense. You have an alternative?

Well, it is a fallacy to say that irreligious people are not, nor can be moral.

However, one might aver that if God did not exist, there would be no morality. Of course, if He did not exist, nothing else would likely exist.

AND TMD, you know as well as I do that an evolutionary approach to morality is as much guesswork as anything.

Do I have an alternative model? Of course. You need to ask? It's a word that starts with theism.

[Return of Too Many Daves]

Yes, it is a theory. The point is the scientific approach to this is to try to propose mechanisms to plug the gaps based on evidence.

The religious approach is to say because God IS.

That is my opinion and I stand by it. I know you don't like it. It seems to me we have debated the point to agreement and you are trying to shift the debate to something else, something which there is no point in us debating because we come with different presuppositions. I've tried to understand yours, but you have no interest.

I'm sorry, What is it that I have no interest in? I have no interest in arguing creation vs evolution. You're right about that, if that is what you meant.

And you lost me on what we have debated to a point of agreement. Please refresh my memory. I admit my memory is fallacious /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

[Return of Too Many Daves]

I only sought to comment that neither theism or atheism is the root of all evil.

For someone who does not want to debate creationism vs evolution, you do seem to invite it again and again, I quote:

"However, one might aver that if God did not exist, there would be no morality. Of course, if He did not exist, nothing else would likely exist."

I do not mean to bait you.
You are right.

As long as we argue with two (very) different basic assumptions, we can't really debate. My statement above would be a statement of faith.

[Return of Too Many Daves]

As for the D' Souza vs Hitchens debate I have only listened to D'Souza part so far.

I do find it telling when instead of trying to justify his position his 1st thought is to list scientists who have been theists. Then he seeks to compare the relative achievements of theism and atheism, something that is very difficult to do. Don't forget atheism was supressed for centuries. In any case it matters little.

I've yet to get a decent response to the fact da Vinci believed in alchemy.

I know otherwise very intelligent atheists/agnostics who believe in ghosts because they have seen them.

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Return of Too Many Daves</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We'll have to agree to disagree, I have frequently seen it said, on this board no less, that morality does not exist without religion.

The evolutionary model is the best explanation and makes a good deal of sense. You have an alternative? </div></div>

Perhaps you're misreading my stance.

I have never said that morality did not exist without religion (how else to explain non-religious tribal peoples not hatcheting each other to death at will?)

What I have stated, and obviously still believe, is that it took Christianity to codify morality to the level that it influenced peoples regardless of political or racial boundaries.

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Return of Too Many Daves</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As for the D' Souza vs Hitchens debate I have only listened to D'Souza part so far.

I do find it telling when instead of trying to justify his position his 1st thought is to list scientists who have been theists. Then he seeks to compare the relative achievements of theism and atheism, something that is very difficult to do. Don't forget atheism was supressed for centuries. In any case it matters little.

I've yet to get a decent response to the fact da Vinci believed in alchemy. </div></div>

Atheism was no more "suppressed" than Catholicism, or Protestantism or (add your favorite 'ism' here). It all depends on the theater you're talking about.