Hitchens/D'Souza Debate

Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Hitchens/D'Souza Debate

Did anybody else go to the Hitchens/D'Souza Debate?

Link

There were cameras videotaping, but I don't see anything on The King's College Web site about posting the vid.

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
For those who couldn't be

For those who couldn't be there, here's a summary of D'Souza's arguments, more or less in the order presented:

-Religion isn't bothering you, so leave it alone. Do I persecute unicorn believers?

-Atheists (i.e. Stalin and Hitler) killed more people than Christians

- Christians like Mother Teresa did more good things for the world than Atheists.

-All these different scientists/artists/musicians were Christians, so Christianity must be okay

-Just look at the complexity of the universe and the way the "dials" are set perfectly for us, therefore Jesus died for your sins

-Science can't know a 100% absolute truth (i.e. the problem of induction) therefore the miracle of the resurrection is true

-Evolution can't account for human morality and altruism

-The reason why atheists are militant is that they--like Hitchens--hate God.  Probably it was some kind of past trauma.

-A society can't survive without religion. 

-Mother Teresa was awesome, therefore Christianity is a good thing

 

Hitchens started out really strong and had a good opening presentation, but then he got bogged down in an argument over whether Christians or Atheists had killed more people in history that went nowhere. Then he kind of lost interest in the second hour and let D'Souza run away with emotional rants (Hitchens was getting pretty slurry toward the end too--that wasn't water he was drinking). So I'd say that D'Souza "won" the debate in the sense that he did a better job of presenting his (tired and lame) arguments. Hitchens wasn't strong on the physics or biology (didn't even correct the "biology can't account for morality" claim) and once D'Souza noticed that, he went for the arguments that Hitchens was weak on.

But the crowd seemed about 50/50, even though it was sponsored by a Christian power college, and maybe some people's minds were changed.

And I learned that, if you're a right-wing whip, you can go to a bunch of theist Web sites and plagiarize their weakest, most lightweight, most easily-refuted tired old arguments into book form and have a bestseller.

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
D'Souza might have appeared

D'Souza might have appeared better since Hitchens had to waste so much time correcting his lies.  If Christians had a sense of morality and were actually honest then the debate would have turned out differenty.  D'Souza is a moronic bigot and the female equivilent of Ann Coulter.


kellym78
atheistRational VIP!
kellym78's picture
Posts: 602
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
The debate is online

The debate is online here

 


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
kellym78 wrote: The debate

kellym78 wrote:

The debate is online here

 

I can't get it to play... 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote: kellym78

Thomathy wrote:
kellym78 wrote:

The debate is online here

 

I can't get it to play...

 

You need Windows Media Player. 


stillmatic
stillmatic's picture
Posts: 288
Joined: 2007-03-29
User is offlineOffline
Hitchens definately seemed

Hitchens definately seemed off his game in this one. It seemed like D'Souza baffled Hitchens by streaming together so many shoddy, dishonest and fallacious arguments in a row.

D'Souza would constantly ask questions like "throughly explain quantum mechanics", then complain that Hitchens was taking too much time answering the question.

There is no doubt in my mind that D'Souza would be absolutely destroyed in a written argument, but he just got the better of Hitchens in the oral side of the debate (minus some extremely sharp jabs from Hitchens).

"A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven." -- former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
stillmatic wrote: D'Souza

stillmatic wrote:

D'Souza would constantly ask questions like "throughly explain quantum mechanics", then complain that Hitchens was taking too much time answering the question.

 

I've seen this Christian-defender strategy before.

"Evolution is true, huh? Well, in that case, explain evolution completely and thorougly, but be brief and concise. Go."

If you fail to do this or leave anything unexplained, you lose.

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.


jmm
Theist
jmm's picture
Posts: 837
Joined: 2007-03-03
User is offlineOffline
I actually caught a rerun

I actually caught a rerun of this tonight on Book TV.  Ha ha.  Boy, Hitchens...let's just say that you guys need some better faces out there representing atheism.  The guy is seriously a joke.  He was totally vague and obscure with most of his points and retorts, relying more on his "biting wit" than actual information.  He stood up there sweating, slurring, and smirking, and he came across like a complete and utter asshole.  

Also, he was drinking on stage, and was quite visibly shitfaced.  The intoxication carried over into his "arguments".  

 The worst part of it was, he was incredibly rude to D'Souza.  He routinely interrupted him at every turn, taking several minutes to dance around a question, and when he finally let D'Souza get a word in edgewise, he cut right back in.  Even when he did let D'Souza speak for more than 10 seconds at a time without interrupting him outright, he would grunt into the microphone just enough to be a distraction.  

 Not to say that I agree with D'Souza.  He has his conservative agenda just as much as Hitchens has his anti-theist agenda.  But he did respect Hitchens enough to let him speak - even more than his fair share. 

But I mean, debates are exceedingly pointless.  No one really wins them.  They both stuck pretty close to the traditional arguments of the topic. 

 Hitchens could certainly take some lessons from Dan Dennett in the courtesy department.  Go to youtube and look for his critique of Rick Warren's The Purpose Driven Life.  He didn't dig for dirt to smear over Warren's reputation, and he even admitted that the book was brilliant (which I don't see, even as a Christian).  He began by pointing out what the book does right, and then he proceeded to rip it to shreds in a very civil, respectful manner.  The guy is a total class act, as well as one of the leading contemporary analytic philosophers in the world. 


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
[quote[ I actually caught a

[quote[

I actually caught a rerun of this tonight on Book TV.  Ha ha.  Boy, Hitchens...let's just say that you guys need some better faces out there representing atheism.

Damn straight. That was not water Hitchens was gulping down. I would be unsuprised if it was medical ethanol. Hitchens often has good points to make, but he's so shitfaced so often it is impossible to discern anything. If Hitchens continues this merry self-destruction, he will die of cirrhosis or emphysema at 65. 

We have good representatives no doubt. Dennett is great. Plus, he's a real philosopher, since he has a large beard. Dawkins, Harris, etc. 

Actually, I was appalled that D'Souza said of Dennett:

"Dennet was making an argument from ignorance- appealling to the ignorance of his audience".

Is he serious? Does D'Souza have an inkling of understanding of what an ad ignorantium really is? Or is he deliberately obtuse? An ad ignorantium occurs when one makes either of the following statements:

X is true because it has not been proven false

X is false because it has not been proven true 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


rpcarnell
atheist
Posts: 123
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
Did I see the same debate

Did I see the same debate you people saw?

Hitchens interrupted D'Souza several times. So what? Didn't Laura Ingraham do it to Brian Sapient as well, and it worked for her?

Hitchens does have a problem with rude behavior. Geez, he is one rude bastard, and yes, he's got to be an alcoholic. While watching Penn and Teller on youtube.com, they interviewed Hitchens for an episode of Mother Theresa, and they had to way for him to finish a pack of cigarettes, and a bottle of Scotch before getting him to talk.

Now, his main problem as a debater is that he mumbles and slurs sometimes. Another problem is that he is one hell of an intellectual, and some of his points may confuse laymen, who happen to be the ones who believe in the christian myth.

D'Souza said something that Hitchens didn't take advantage of, and almost any atheist could have used against him. He said Christianity was introduced to the Indian people of his village by the Portuguese inquisition. Imagine that. The same inquisition that persecuted the Monks of a small island (I think it was Macao) that the Chinese government took from Portugal in 1999, if I remember correctly. D'Souza is following a belief system introduced to his people by a movement that killed 70,000 people, and would have killed more had the inquisitors had the weaponry someone like Stalin had in his possession.

Another stupid argument by D'Souza was the idea that Mother Theresa helped people because of his love of Jesus. What a bunch of crap. This guy seems to believe that Christians are the only people out there capable of good, and whoever isn't a Christian is capable of mass murder. Someone needs to remind Christians that science is what keeps improving the world, and not religion, and science is mostly non-religious.

As a debater, Hitchens is better than Dawkins and Sapient. Dawkins couldn't beat O'Reilly while he was on his show, and Sapient couldn't beat that bitch Ingraham in a debate---her only debate-tactic was making groundless arguments and interrupting Sapient whenever he was making a point.

 D'Souza claimed that Stalin killed more people because he was an atheist. What's this? So if you are a Christian you are capable of killing 70,000 non-Christians instead of 7,000,000? Is there something in the Buy'bull that says don't kill people pass the 70,000 mark? This argument, at best, implies that as a set of rules regulating behavior, Christianity is less of a failure than atheism, but still a failure and has to be replaced. The argument falls apart when you consider countries like the USA, with more than 90% christians, Panama (my country) with 98% catholic and more than 500 murders each year (we only have 3,000,000 people here), while Sweden, Japan with very large non-religious populations have low crime rates.

 

 

 

 


Pathofreason
Superfan
Pathofreason's picture
Posts: 320
Joined: 2006-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Don't get me wrong

I love Hitchens but I think he needs to cure his Alcoholism.  He was off of his game probably because he was drinking so much.

Co-Founder of the Atheist/Freethought website Pathofreason.com

www.pathofreason.com

Check it out


Lux
Theist
Posts: 204
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
rpcarnell wrote: Did I see

rpcarnell wrote:

Did I see the same debate you people saw?

Hitchens interrupted D'Souza several times. So what? Didn't Laura Ingraham do it to Brian Sapient as well, and it worked for her?

Hitchens does have a problem with rude behavior. Geez, he is one rude bastard, and yes, he's got to be an alcoholic. While watching Penn and Teller on youtube.com, they interviewed Hitchens for an episode of Mother Theresa, and they had to way for him to finish a pack of cigarettes, and a bottle of Scotch before getting him to talk.

Now, his main problem as a debater is that he mumbles and slurs sometimes. Another problem is that he is one hell of an intellectual, and some of his points may confuse laymen, who happen to be the ones who believe in the christian myth.

D'Souza said something that Hitchens didn't take advantage of, and almost any atheist could have used against him. He said Christianity was introduced to the Indian people of his village by the Portuguese inquisition. Imagine that. The same inquisition that persecuted the Monks of a small island (I think it was Macao) that the Chinese government took from Portugal in 1999, if I remember correctly. D'Souza is following a belief system introduced to his people by a movement that killed 70,000 people, and would have killed more had the inquisitors had the weaponry someone like Stalin had in his possession.

Another stupid argument by D'Souza was the idea that Mother Theresa helped people because of his love of Jesus. What a bunch of crap. This guy seems to believe that Christians are the only people out there capable of good, and whoever isn't a Christian is capable of mass murder. Someone needs to remind Christians that science is what keeps improving the world, and not religion, and science is mostly non-religious.

As a debater, Hitchens is better than Dawkins and Sapient. Dawkins couldn't beat O'Reilly while he was on his show, and Sapient couldn't beat that bitch Ingraham in a debate---her only debate-tactic was making groundless arguments and interrupting Sapient whenever he was making a point.

 D'Souza claimed that Stalin killed more people because he was an atheist. What's this? So if you are a Christian you are capable of killing 70,000 non-Christians instead of 7,000,000? Is there something in the Buy'bull that says don't kill people pass the 70,000 mark? This argument, at best, implies that as a set of rules regulating behavior, Christianity is less of a failure than atheism, but still a failure and has to be replaced. The argument falls apart when you consider countries like the USA, with more than 90% christians, Panama (my country) with 98% catholic and more than 500 murders each year (we only have 3,000,000 people here), while Sweden, Japan with very large non-religious populations have low crime rates.

 

 

 

you're mentioning HItchens, Dawkins and SAPIENT!?! in the same breath? Are you kidding me? Sapient is just a wanna-be martyr, with no real angle besides bashing Christians from the comfort of his basement, whilst hiding behind all of his goons who don't know thier ass from a hole in the ground. As much as I disagree wit Dawkins and Hitchens, you're totally disrespecting them by painting them with the same brush as Sapient.

"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning..." -CS Lewis


Lux
Theist
Posts: 204
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
you're mentioning HItchens,

you're mentioning HItchens, Dawkins and SAPIENT!?! in the same breath? Are you kidding me? Sapient is just a wanna-be martyr, with no real angle besides bashing Christians from the comfort of his basement, whilst hiding behind all of his goons who don't know thier ass from a hole in the ground. As much as I disagree wit Dawkins and Hitchens, you're totally disrespecting them by painting them with the same brush as Sapient.

"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning..." -CS Lewis


rpcarnell
atheist
Posts: 123
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
I have been watching the

I have been watching the Atheism Tapes on youtube, and I am starting to notice why the Hitchens, the Dawkins get into trouble with theists.

The problem here is that these two, unlike Daniel Dennett and Steven Weinberg, for example, come out as being too fanatical about atheism. If you claim that religions should be banned, you are going to get in trouble because the communists did ban religions, and the outcome was horrible. The purpose of atheism should be freeing people from superstition, not forcing them to believe what they don't want to believe. Also, if you claim that atheists don't do the kind of stuff theists are capable of doing (Hitchens does this, for example), you may run into trouble. Keep in mind that the communists did some of the things Christians have done, and they were even better at it (mainly because Inquisitors didn't have nukes or machine guns to go after heretics). In the movie Inside Man, the good guys (or bad guys, if you don't like bank robbers at all) played some presidential speech in Albanian to confuse the police. Turns out the speech was given by the President of Albania during the Cold War. A communist who threatened to imprison anyone who owned copies of the Bible or the Koran. The penalty could be three to ten years in prison. This is the kind of stuff that makes me fear my fellow atheists as much as the idea of another inquisition makes my skin crawl. 

But it doesn't matter. Christians will always prove that they aren't the only ones capable of mass murder. We don't have a book as sinister as the Bible or the Koran, but we can be sinister as well. The best way of beating Christians is to debate their beliefs, not to accuse them of doing stuff we as atheists are incapable of doing.

Yes, one of the main problems with atheism and atheists is the lingering ghost of communism. An atheist doctrine that behaved like a religion where Marx was the Messiah, the state was God, and all the Stalins, and the Maos were Popes running inquisitions on whoever didn't buy the crap they were selling. Whenever an atheist says religious people are capable of this or that, the communist ghost will always appear, and this ghost isn't easy to kill, specially if you are claiming that religions are the main cause of trouble in the world. Today, that's true. In the past, it was the communists. In the 1940s, it was the Nazis (with their own form of Christianity), and before that, it was the Kings and the Czars). It seems we are going back to the dark ages with Muslims playing Jihab, and Bush playing Crusades against the Middle East, and that makes us stronger than we were back in the 50s.

One way of killing the commie ghost would be to remind people that Bush's administration is responsible for the torture of political prisoners in Guantanamo, and this is a Christian administration. But the issue here is not who kills and who doesn't kill. It is the claim that religions poison everything which gets Hitchens into trouble. Secular dictatorships helped D'Souza prove that some things can be poisoned without religion. All you need is a doctrine that thinks it can fix the world (communism, nazism, christianity, islam), and you will have trouble because whoever doesn't follow that doctrine becomes an enemy of mankind to the followers of that doctrine. Stalin probably thought he was doing mankind a favor by wiping out his enemies, just like Hitler thought genocide was the solution to the Jewish Problem (assuming there was a Jewish problem to begin with).

It'd be better for atheists to just say that religion offers answers that can be proven to be false. That religion dislikes theories that prove the Bible is wrong (evolution) and sometimes seeks to ban these theories. It'd be better to say that atheists don't have the sex-phobia that Christians have and eventually science will understand the human mind better than a doctrine that believes all the evils of the world came because some nudists ate an apple after a talking snake convinced them to do it. Religions do poison science and thinking. Religions do imprison the mind. But religions aren't the main cause of the world's problems, not by a long shot. Keep in mind that if people created religions, then people are the problem. If religions are replaced by doctrines, then those doctrines can become the problem.

But the claim that religions can do to people stuff that atheists are incapable of doing is dumb. Both, Christians and atheists rely on the morals of society. Christians pick those lines in the Bible that fit society's morals and also try to add to society their ancient, inane morals in the process, and atheists try to change those morals they believe are wrong or ancient, often getting into trouble with Christians. In the end, both are capable of being evil, and D'Souza proved that to Hitchens.

 

However D'Souza isn't exactly a good debater. Claiming he became a Christian because his ancestors were forced into becoming Christians by Portuguese Inquisitors could've gotten him into trouble had Hitchens' mind being more sober. He also offered Hitchens some trashy arguments that are typical of theists:

(1) Dr. Feelgood argument: religion makes me feel good, so it is true.

(2) The Muse Argument: yes, christianity inspires works of art. It must be true. Someone needs to show him that H. R Giger makes some really nice art involving demons, so I guess we should have more satanists.

(3) Can you explain this? No. Therefore God must be real.

(4) Mother Theresa helped people because Jesus asked her to, so Jesus must be the son of God.

Believe it or not, the last argument is powerful. The human being is a predator by nature, and people tend to be selfish. However a religion that makes people believe there is a universal ruler watching over them can make people self-centered, selfish. The concept of faith is also arrogant all by itself, for believing in something that lacks evidence won't make it true. But there are people, self-centered, arrogant pricks, who do help people thinking this will buy them a ticket to heaven, and these people, without religion, might become selfish assholes, period, as opposed to selfish-assholes being less selfish because of self interest. A paradox in a way, but it helps people like D'Souza claim Christianity is good. Someone needs to remind him that the Catholic Church helps people with HIV, but also says condoms shouldn't be used. 

The best way of beating Christians is to debate their beliefs, not to accuse them of doing stuff we as atheists are incapable of doing. This is a red herring we are throwing at them instead of giving them the real issue: why we don't believe. 

 

 

 


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Lux wrote: you're

Lux wrote:
you're mentioning HItchens, Dawkins and SAPIENT!?! in the same breath? Are you kidding me? Sapient is just a wanna-be martyr, with no real angle besides bashing Christians from the comfort of his basement, whilst hiding behind all of his goons who don't know thier ass from a hole in the ground. As much as I disagree wit Dawkins and Hitchens, you're totally disrespecting them by painting them with the same brush as Sapient.

Please don't try to derail the thread. Thanks. 


Lux
Theist
Posts: 204
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote: Lux

magilum wrote:

Lux wrote:
you're mentioning HItchens, Dawkins and SAPIENT!?! in the same breath? Are you kidding me? Sapient is just a wanna-be martyr, with no real angle besides bashing Christians from the comfort of his basement, whilst hiding behind all of his goons who don't know thier ass from a hole in the ground. As much as I disagree wit Dawkins and Hitchens, you're totally disrespecting them by painting them with the same brush as Sapient.

Please don't try to derail the thread. Thanks. 

 

the truth hurts. thanks

"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning..." -CS Lewis


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
Lux wrote: the truth

Lux wrote:

the truth hurts. thanks

 All hail the blurry tree squatter!


Lux
Theist
Posts: 204
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
stuntgibbon wrote: Lux

stuntgibbon wrote:
Lux wrote:

the truth hurts. thanks

 All hail the blurry tree squatter!

 

ya know, you're not the first to comment on my picture, which means most of you have nothing of importance to say, only insults. And by the way, it was a cheap digital camera that had fog in the lens, its not a glamour shot or anything.

"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning..." -CS Lewis


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Lux wrote: stuntgibbon

Lux wrote:
stuntgibbon wrote:
Lux wrote:

the truth hurts. thanks

All hail the blurry tree squatter!

 

ya know, you're not the first to comment on my picture, which means most of you have nothing of importance to say, only insults. And by the way, it was a cheap digital camera that had fog in the lens, its not a glamour shot or anything.

Just matching the importance of our statements to the importance of yours. You brought ad homs - someone was kind enough to do the same. 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Lux wrote: magilum

Lux wrote:
magilum wrote:

Lux wrote:
you're mentioning HItchens, Dawkins and SAPIENT!?! in the same breath? Are you kidding me? Sapient is just a wanna-be martyr, with no real angle besides bashing Christians from the comfort of his basement, whilst hiding behind all of his goons who don't know thier ass from a hole in the ground. As much as I disagree wit Dawkins and Hitchens, you're totally disrespecting them by painting them with the same brush as Sapient.

Please don't try to derail the thread. Thanks. 

 

the truth hurts. thanks

Not at all relevant. Please stop trolling the thread. 


Lux
Theist
Posts: 204
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: Lux

jcgadfly wrote:
Lux wrote:
stuntgibbon wrote:
Lux wrote:

the truth hurts. thanks

All hail the blurry tree squatter!

 

ya know, you're not the first to comment on my picture, which means most of you have nothing of importance to say, only insults. And by the way, it was a cheap digital camera that had fog in the lens, its not a glamour shot or anything.

Just matching the importance of our statements to the importance of yours. You brought ad homs - someone was kind enough to do the same. 

 

what? by pointing out that Sapient has noones respect in the "real" world outside of his little "we hate god and you should to" group?? I'm just telling it like it is

"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning..." -CS Lewis


Lux
Theist
Posts: 204
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: Lux

jcgadfly wrote:
Lux wrote:
stuntgibbon wrote:
Lux wrote:

the truth hurts. thanks

All hail the blurry tree squatter!

 

ya know, you're not the first to comment on my picture, which means most of you have nothing of importance to say, only insults. And by the way, it was a cheap digital camera that had fog in the lens, its not a glamour shot or anything.

Just matching the importance of our statements to the importance of yours. You brought ad homs - someone was kind enough to do the same. 

 

what? by pointing out that Sapient has noones respect in the "real" world outside of his little "we hate god and you should to" group?? I'm just telling it like it is

"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning..." -CS Lewis


Lux
Theist
Posts: 204
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
ok, fine I'll offer my

ok, fine I'll offer my opinion of the debate between HItchens and D'Souza. I thought D'Souza absolutley killed hitchens. All Hitchens was able to do was spew all rhetoric about how Christians are soooo very bad. and that how the story of Christ's death is horrible and not suitable for children. He fails, just like every other atheist, to put forth a solid argument against the existence of God. Hitchens is equal to a good fictional story writer or maybe a nazi propaganda leaflet writer. Dawkins, Hitchens , Harris, and all the rest of them, should stick to writing books and filling their pockets instead of being outmatched in debates with theists who are clearly better versed and more knowledgable on the subject of Gods existence.

"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning..." -CS Lewis


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Lux wrote: ok, fine I'll

Lux wrote:
ok, fine I'll offer my opinion of the debate between HItchens and D'Souza. I thought D'Souza absolutley killed hitchens. All Hitchens was able to do was spew all rhetoric about how Christians are soooo very bad. and that how the story of Christ's death is horrible and not suitable for children. He fails, just like every other atheist, to put forth a solid argument against the existence of God. Hitchens is equal to a good fictional story writer or maybe a nzi proaganda leaflet writer. Dawkins, Hitchens , Harris, and all the rest of them, should stick to writing books and filling theri pockets instead for being outmatched in debates with theists who are clearly better versed and more knowledgable on the subject of Gods existence.

And yet...

None of these "theists who are clearly better versed and more knowledgable on the subject of Gods existence" bring anything to the discussion.

At best you folk bring ad homs and naked assertions.

Myself, I wish Hitchens would lay of the sauce also (for his health). Still a shame for your troops that Hitchens makes more sense crocked than D'Souza does sober. 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Lux
Theist
Posts: 204
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: Lux

jcgadfly wrote:

Lux wrote:
ok, fine I'll offer my opinion of the debate between HItchens and D'Souza. I thought D'Souza absolutley killed hitchens. All Hitchens was able to do was spew all rhetoric about how Christians are soooo very bad. and that how the story of Christ's death is horrible and not suitable for children. He fails, just like every other atheist, to put forth a solid argument against the existence of God. Hitchens is equal to a good fictional story writer or maybe a nzi proaganda leaflet writer. Dawkins, Hitchens , Harris, and all the rest of them, should stick to writing books and filling theri pockets instead for being outmatched in debates with theists who are clearly better versed and more knowledgable on the subject of Gods existence.

And yet...

None of these "theists who are clearly better versed and more knowledgable on the subject of Gods existence" bring anything to the discussion.

At best you folk bring ad homs and naked assertions.

Myself, I wish Hitchens would lay of the sauce also (for his health). Still a shame for your troops that Hitchens makes more sense crocked than D'Souza does sober. 

 

 

hmmm, did we watch the same debate? Hitchens had his "stock" points on hand and ready to fire away but thats about it, and far as having any substance to his arguement, he flat on his butt. D'Souza was clear and presise in making his points and never once seemed stumped by any of the lame tired old crap Hitchens (in his drunken state) threw out there. In fact, it makes me want to read "Whats so great about Christianity"

"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning..." -CS Lewis


Lux
Theist
Posts: 204
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: Lux

jcgadfly wrote:

Lux wrote:
ok, fine I'll offer my opinion of the debate between HItchens and D'Souza. I thought D'Souza absolutley killed hitchens. All Hitchens was able to do was spew all rhetoric about how Christians are soooo very bad. and that how the story of Christ's death is horrible and not suitable for children. He fails, just like every other atheist, to put forth a solid argument against the existence of God. Hitchens is equal to a good fictional story writer or maybe a nzi proaganda leaflet writer. Dawkins, Hitchens , Harris, and all the rest of them, should stick to writing books and filling theri pockets instead for being outmatched in debates with theists who are clearly better versed and more knowledgable on the subject of Gods existence.

And yet...

None of these "theists who are clearly better versed and more knowledgable on the subject of Gods existence" bring anything to the discussion.

At best you folk bring ad homs and naked assertions.

Myself, I wish Hitchens would lay of the sauce also (for his health). Still a shame for your troops that Hitchens makes more sense crocked than D'Souza does sober. 

 

 

hmmm, did we watch the same debate? Hitchens had his "stock" points on hand and ready to fire away but thats about it, and far as having any substance to his arguement, he was flat on his butt. D'Souza was clear and presise in making his points and never once seemed stumped by any of the lame tired old crap Hitchens (in his drunken state) threw out there. In fact, it makes me want to read "Whats so great about Christianity"

"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning..." -CS Lewis


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Lux wrote: jcgadfly

Lux wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:

Lux wrote:
ok, fine I'll offer my opinion of the debate between HItchens and D'Souza. I thought D'Souza absolutley killed hitchens. All Hitchens was able to do was spew all rhetoric about how Christians are soooo very bad. and that how the story of Christ's death is horrible and not suitable for children. He fails, just like every other atheist, to put forth a solid argument against the existence of God. Hitchens is equal to a good fictional story writer or maybe a nzi proaganda leaflet writer. Dawkins, Hitchens , Harris, and all the rest of them, should stick to writing books and filling theri pockets instead for being outmatched in debates with theists who are clearly better versed and more knowledgable on the subject of Gods existence.

And yet...

None of these "theists who are clearly better versed and more knowledgable on the subject of Gods existence" bring anything to the discussion.

At best you folk bring ad homs and naked assertions.

Myself, I wish Hitchens would lay of the sauce also (for his health). Still a shame for your troops that Hitchens makes more sense crocked than D'Souza does sober.

 

 

hmmm, did we watch the same debate? Hitchens had his "stock" points on hand and ready to fire away but thats about it, and far as having any substance to his arguement, he was flat on his butt. D'Souza was clear and presise in making his points and never once seemed stumped by any of the lame tired old crap Hitchens (in his drunken state) threw out there. In fact, it makes me want to read "Whats so great about Christianity"

We watched the same debate but not in the same way. I watched it listening to both sides and you watched it believing D'Souza would win.

I also noticed that you completely glossed over my earlier point - where are these theists that know so much about god's existence and why aren't they talking?

Feel free to pm me so this thread can stay on the debate. 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Lux wrote: In fact, it

Lux wrote:
In fact, it makes me want to read "Whats so great about Christianity"

I think this was actually a major underlying reason for the debate.  D'Souza's publisher had a table set up in the lobby of the venue with stacks of the book and a couple of hot Christian College chicks hawking it.  After the debate, he was signing copies.

The King's College, sponsors of the event, is one of those Christian Power colleges that are trying to provide dedicated Christian students with the credentials they need for high-level public policy and business jobs without subjecting them to the critical or self-analytical ideas that might cause them to question the absolute authority of their brainwashing.  Being there with the KC students was like hanging around the quad at Stepford U.

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Could it be? Lux actually

Could it be? Lux actually made a statement about something? It's not very good, it's actually the same as every other post he makes, but it's something.

Lux wrote:
ok, fine I'll offer my opinion of the debate between HItchens and D'Souza.

How charitable of your to actually post on the topic rather than contributing noise.

Lux wrote:
I thought D'Souza absolutley killed hitchens. All Hitchens was able to do was spew all rhetoric about how Christians are soooo very bad. and that how the story of Christ's death is horrible and not suitable for children. He fails, just like every other atheist, to put forth a solid argument against the existence of God.

Blah blah blah blah blah... my side is better... I'm a provincial ignoramus... go team... fap fap fap... oh, what's this? Something toward the end that's not an ad hominem? Oh, but it's an attempt to shift the burden of proof.

Lux wrote:
Hitchens is equal to a good fictional story writer or maybe a nazi propaganda leaflet writer. Dawkins, Hitchens , Harris, and all the rest of them, should stick to writing books and filling their pockets

And he's fat, too, don't forget that. Do you think this is an argument? What does any of it even mean, or have to do with anything at all? It's just generalized vitriol against them as people, and other assorted bullshit. Don't you have anything specific to say about anything?

Lux wrote:
instead of being outmatched in debates with theists who are clearly better versed and more knowledgable on the subject of Gods existence.

Which is like being a fluent speaker of Klingon. Seriously, Lux, I can barely respond to your posts without feeling like I'm being dragged down to some subterranean depth, some miserable, stunted level of discourse. There's nothing in there to argue with or refute; no facts are claimed, just general feelings about things stated. Look at other theists, like Cristos. He criticized Hitchens, too, but at least he generally has an argument. I think his reasoning failed, but at least it was specific.


Lux
Theist
Posts: 204
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
"Which is like being a


"Which is like being a fluent speaker of Klingon. Seriously, Lux, I can barely respond to your posts without feeling like I'm being dragged down to some subterranean depth, some miserable, stunted level of discourse."

I figured you all saw the debate, I didn't feel like being specific. One point that was made is the fact that "our morals" and our civility can betraced back to Christ himself, whether you like it or not. Hitchens didn't have a reply for this except to say "hey, you don't thik we had morals before Christ came along?" But the truth is, in the Western world, our rules, our way of life is based off of Christian teachings.

Oh and as far as D'Souza having books at a table for sale, thats quite common among most people who go around debating at events like this. Do you really think Dawkins and Harris and Hitchens have NEVER promoted their work this way?

I'll stop cheering on speakers who I support when all the Dawkins fanboys go home and never return to this forum, which we both know ain't goning to happen soon. Poeple who live in glass houses.............

"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning..." -CS Lewis


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Lux wrote:

Lux wrote:


"Which is like being a fluent speaker of Klingon. Seriously, Lux, I can barely respond to your posts without feeling like I'm being dragged down to some subterranean depth, some miserable, stunted level of discourse."

 

I figured you all saw the debate, I didn't feel like being specific. One point that was made is the fact that "our morals" and our civility can betraced back to Christ himself, whether you like it or not. Hitchens didn't have a reply for this except to say "hey, you don't thik we had morals before Christ came along?" But the truth is, in the Western world, our rules, our way of life is based off of Christian teachings.

 

Oh and as far as D'sousa having books at a table for sale, thats quite common among most people who go around debating events like this. Do you really think Dawkins and Harris and Hitchens have NEVER promoted their work this way?

 

I'll stop cheering on speakers who I support when all the Dawkins fanboy's go home and never return to this forum, which we both know ain't goning to happen soon. Poeple who live in glass houses.............

And christian teachings were borrowed from earlier civilizations as well. What's your point (besides trying to lie about christianity being the originator of morality)?

I didn't accuse you of cheering on speakers - I stated you watched the debate already in full agreement with D'Souza. He could've dropped trou and crapped on the stage and you would talk about what an amazing debate tactic it was. It wouldn't have mattered to you how cogent the other argument was - your mind was made up.

still waiting on your PM where you tell me about all those theist with the expert knowledge of God's existence... 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
Lux wrote:
stuntgibbon wrote:
Lux wrote:

the truth hurts. thanks

All hail the blurry tree squatter!

 

ya know, you're not the first to comment on my picture, which means most of you have nothing of importance to say, only insults. And by the way, it was a cheap digital camera that had fog in the lens, its not a glamour shot or anything.

Just matching the importance of our statements to the importance of yours. You brought ad homs - someone was kind enough to do the same.

 

Right yes, that was the point. Basically flinging insults at Brian because he's not the other people seems unfair given the relative "nobody" status of the accuser. (no offense to lux directly, but more of a criticism of his lack of an authoritative status to back up such statements.)

Sapient's probably just short a book deal to be in the same bracket as the others he mentioned tho, already the RRS has generated attention on a national level and on Dawkins' own website he has a link up proclaiming he's also a part of the RRS. (so props FROM one of the people lux named as more legit)

 


Lux
Theist
Posts: 204
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Sapient's probably just

Sapient's probably just short a book deal to be in the same bracket as the others he mentioned tho, already the RRS has generated attention on a national level and on Dawkins' own website he has a link up proclaiming he's also a part of the RRS. (so props FROM one of the people lux named as more legit)"

 

So uh, is Brian working a pop-up or coloring book?  

"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning..." -CS Lewis


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
Lux wrote:   So uh, is

Lux wrote:
 

So uh, is Brian working a pop-up or coloring book?

Good idea, maybe we can reach children before the churches brainwash them.   

 

 

Kids are bound to run out of red crayons in one of these.  Stoning, fun for all ages! 


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Lux wrote: I figured you

Lux wrote:
I figured you all saw the debate, I didn't feel like being specific. One point that was made is the fact that "our morals" and our civility can betraced back to Christ himself,

Which is total bullshit, since there's barely evidence that such a person even existed. The only real account of this supposed person was written by fuck-knows-who long after his supposed death, edited, compiled and assigned their spurious authors by still more people. Even then, the idea that there's something unique or special in this incoherent collection of fables and apocalyptics rantings is totally debunked by the development of similar moral codes independent and prior to Christianity.

Lux wrote:
whether you like it or not.

What you make up for by being a twat you lack in everything else.

Lux wrote:
Hitchens didn't have a reply for this except to say "hey, you don't thik we had morals before Christ came along?" But the truth is, in the Western world, our rules, our way of life is based off of Christian teachings.

We know that codified morals existed prior to and independently of Christianity (adding to that, codified morals haven't been demonstrated necessary to moral behavior), and that Christianity borrows heavily from Judaism and other religions; so all you're really saying is that the west adopted it, you like it, so it's superior. Going further, most people don't really base their lives on biblical instruction, defering on a few emotional issues, but living largely secular lives. With such a marginalized influence on our daily lives, it would be interchangeable with many other religions, or none at all.

Lux wrote:
[...] I'll stop cheering on speakers who I support when all the Dawkins fanboys go home and never return to this forum, which we both know ain't goning to happen soon. Poeple who live in glass houses.............

Says the guy who defers to an incoherent, anonymously authored and edited book. Yawn.


Lux
Theist
Posts: 204
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
stuntgibbon wrote: Lux

stuntgibbon wrote:
Lux wrote:
 

So uh, is Brian working a pop-up or coloring book?

Good idea, maybe we can reach children before the churches brainwash them.   

 

 

Kids are bound to run out of red crayons in one of these.  Stoning, fun for all ages! 

 

hmmm, an atheist coloring book. What would that look like? A blank page? Mao Zedong, Stalin, or maybe the killing fields of Cambodia? wow you're right, an atheist coloring book would be spreading a great messege to kids, not like the christian ones with all that talk about love, mercy and forgiveness. pffttt 

"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning..." -CS Lewis


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Lux wrote: So uh, is Brian

Lux wrote:

So uh, is Brian working a pop-up or coloring book?  

Are you wearing a trash bag? 


Lux
Theist
Posts: 204
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote: Lux

magilum wrote:
Lux wrote:

So uh, is Brian working a pop-up or coloring book?  

Are you wearing a trash bag? 

 

dude, it's PLEATHER....get with the program Smiling

"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning..." -CS Lewis


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Lux wrote:

Lux wrote:

One point that was made is the fact that "our morals" and our civility can betraced back to Christ himself, whether you like it or not. Hitchens didn't have a reply for this except to say "hey, you don't thik we had morals before Christ came along?" But the truth is, in the Western world, our rules, our way of life is based off of Christian teachings.

Nonsense. Hitchens brought up the parable of the good samaritan -- an example of moral action without any jesus or god to trace back to (indeed, in contrast to the more pious individuals who passed by the wounded man). D'Souza's retort as I recall was on the order of "jesus hadn't come yet". Hitchens should have (and if in better form, probably would have) driven this point home; that he didn't is not an exculpation of D'Souza's weak-minded argument.

Another egregious argument by D'Souza was (as rpcarnell pointed out) was in his vindication of Portugal's incursions into India for the consequent conversion to christianity.  D'Souza claims at once that morality can only be traced back to christ, yet will absolve any immoral action if it results in spreading belief in christ.  Again Hitchens ought to have pounced on this fallacious reasoning.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Lux wrote: hmmm, an atheist

Lux wrote:
hmmm, an atheist coloring book. What would that look like? A blank page? Mao Zedong, Stalin, or maybe the killing fields of Cambodia?

You've got a point there. We're identical to them in every respect... except for their adherence to a radical and untenable economic ideology, their personality cults, and their murderous policy toward their political opponents. Job one for Pol Pot was killing the intellectuals, so if that repeats when one of us rises to power as a radical state capitalist, at least you'll be safe. Actually, silencing critics by any means necessary sounds like...

Lux wrote:
wow you're right, an atheist coloring book would be spreading a great messege to kids, not like the christian ones with all that talk about love, mercy and forgiveness. pffttt 

Imagine the fun kids can have shading in the Whore of Babylon.


Lux
Theist
Posts: 204
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote: Lux

zarathustra wrote:
Lux wrote:

One point that was made is the fact that "our morals" and our civility can betraced back to Christ himself, whether you like it or not. Hitchens didn't have a reply for this except to say "hey, you don't thik we had morals before Christ came along?" But the truth is, in the Western world, our rules, our way of life is based off of Christian teachings.

Nonsense.  Hitchens brought up the parable of the good samaritan -- an example of moral action without any jesus or god to trace back to (indeed, in contrast to the more pious individuals who passed by the wounded man).  D'Souza's retort as I recall was on the order of "jesus hadn't come yet".  Hitchens should have (and if in better form, probably would have) driven this point home;  that he didn't is not an exculpation of D'Souza's weak-minded argument.

 

we have the physical ability to ride a bike BEFORE actually having the "skills" to do it. Same with this parable. We are given the ability and the capacity to be compassionate but in order to become fully aware of these things, we must be taught Why and how.   

"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning..." -CS Lewis


Lux
Theist
Posts: 204
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote: Lux

magilum wrote:

Lux wrote:
hmmm, an atheist coloring book. What would that look like? A blank page? Mao Zedong, Stalin, or maybe the killing fields of Cambodia?

You've got a point there. We're identical to them in every respect... except for their adherence to a radical and untenable economic ideology, their personality cults, and their murderous policy toward their political opponents. Job one for Pol Pot was killing the intellectuals, so if that repeats when one of us rises to power as a radical state capitalist, at least you'll be safe. Actually, silencing critics by any means necessary sounds like...

Lux wrote:
wow you're right, an atheist coloring book would be spreading a great messege to kids, not like the christian ones with all that talk about love, mercy and forgiveness. pffttt 

Imagine the fun kids can have shading in the Whore of Babylon.

 

 "Job one for Pol Pot was killing the intellectuals, so if that repeats when one of us rises to power as a radical state capitalist, at least you'll be safe."

 

A little offended, but also laughing because it was pretty funny.

"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning..." -CS Lewis


rpcarnell
atheist
Posts: 123
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
You want to be a good

You want to be a good debater? Avoid generalizing. Hitchens claims religions poison "everything." Does it? During the debate, some guy from a small island in Asia (I may be mistaken) clained that before Christianity made it to his island, people were going around devouring each other. Yes, it is probably true. In this case, what we have here is evidence that Christianity did some good by introducing a piece of western civilization into the island. Hadn't Christians reached that island, it would've been the muslims, or the Hindus, or the humanists, or anyone else who was civilized enough to know that it is the cows that must become hamburgers and not your fellow neighbors. It just happened to be Christianity, and if Christians did stop people from eating each other, may the 5000 and so gods people have invented bless them for it.

But...

In the Island of Java, Christians and Muslims co-exist, just not peacefully. They kill each other all the time. And whoever gets killed is also beheaded because locals think that refusing to behead the body traps the soul inside it. Thousands of beheaded religious people. As Richard Dawkins once pointed out, religions do good things, but the bad outweights the good.

Let me say it again: you want to be a good debater? Avoid generalizing. Pol Pot, Stalin, and all the other communists did murder millions of people. But they all had something in common: communism. If everyone in the world became an atheist, we may not have our good share of Maos and Pol Pots unless some ideology that claims to have a solution to the world's problems (Marxism) pops up and trust me, it will. People who are afraid of life and want to make it a good place for their Volvos eventually come out with some really good ideas that can solve everyone's problems, specially when people start following those ideas and kill whoever doesn't follow them for being an enemy of the human race. If you want to blame something for what Pol Pot and Mao and Stalin did, blame communism.

Once again, avoid generalizing. Hugo Chavez hasn't started his own genocide. Yet. Like Mao and Stalin before him, he also believes he has a solution to the world's problems. But wait, Hugo Chavez does thank Jesus and the Virgin Mary after every speech. Maybe he is a religious communist. I guess that bounds him to censoring TV channels and turning the country into a mess, but killing more than a few thousand may be a "no-no". It seems D'Souza's argument is that when atheists go bad, millions die instead of the 70,000 the inquision wiped out. Yes. One of the Ten Commandments makes it clear. "Thou shalt not kill pass the 70,000 mark the Lord has given thee."

D'Souza gave Hitchens so many bad arguments that it is hard to believe that a good debater like Hitchens didn't sit D'Souza on his lap and turn him into a wooden puppet. D'Souza claimed that Hitler despised Christianity. Alfie, as most neo-nazis like to call him, believed that Jesus was an Aryan who had come to the world to fight the Jewish menace. He aso ordered his fellow Nazis to investigate Jesus' past to prove that he was indeed an Aryan. Hitler's state of mind was really out there. He also believed Jesus couldn't have died for people's sins because that would've been something only a weak man would do, not an Aryan. Hitler did despise Christianity as it is known today. But he was far from being an atheist. D'Souza reminded Hitchens about this, and Hitchens should have said: so what? It is just evidence that a megalomaniac can turn any religion upside down and use it for his own purposes, making it clear that religious morality can be used to committ genocide and not stop it, like D'Souza claimed it does. Hitler and Milosevic were good at using religious values to commit genocide.

Not all tyrants have been atheists. Vlad Dracul used impalement to drive invaders from the Ottoman empire away. He skinned a woman alive for having sex before marriage. Does the name sound familiar. He inspired the legend of Count Dracula, except that Cound Dracula covered his eyes when he saw a cross, and Vlad Dracul's actions were approved by the Catholic Church. Then there's the Conquistadores, who introduced Catholicism to Latin America right after taking some of its gold, turning natives into slaves, and destroying half the civilizations the Incas and the Mayas had spent centuries building. Like I said before, they didn't do much harm because they didn't have machine guns. Stalin did. And Pinoche, Francisco Franco, and the all the Military governments of Latin America did it as well, except that they got support from the Catholic Church. 

D'Souza also made it clear that there can be no morality or charity without Christianity. This is no different than saying no man can be inventive or moral without having white blood running through his veins, the way people like those in the KKK and Church of the Creator claim. He should be given a copy of the Tao Teh Ching and read the teachings of Confucius before making such a claim.

 


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
rpcarnell wrote: During the

rpcarnell wrote:
During the debate, some guy from a small island in Asia (I may be mistaken) clained that before Christianity made it to his island, people were going around devouring each other. Yes, it is probably true.

Actually the guy from Tongo was over-generalizing the situation.  The vast majority of mammals instinctively avoid eating members of their own species for sustenance.  Nobody is certain why, but it may be that too many diseases (especially viruses, prions) are vectored that way.  There's a theory right now, for instance, that Tazmanian Devils are going extinct because they routinely scavenge the bodies of their own dead, which might be why they're all dying from a virus-induced tumor disease.  Animals don't need a religion to teach them not to eat each other--natural selection takes care of that.

Humans are a notable exception, but in all documented cases of cannibalism, people only routinely eat each other as part of a religious ceremony--and not for sustenance.  In Tongo in the old days, you might eat a little piece of a dead enemy warrior to absorb some of his strength as part of a heavily-ritualized, communal ceremony.  But the calorie intake was insignificant--to live you ate pigs, chickens, fish and plants.

Let me emphasize that--people eat each other *because of* religion, and not from a lack of it. 

All Christianity does is swap one form of ritual religious cannibalism for another--a literal form for a symbolic form.  What is the communion after all? 

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


Lux
Theist
Posts: 204
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Textom wrote: rpcarnell

Textom wrote:

rpcarnell wrote:
During the debate, some guy from a small island in Asia (I may be mistaken) clained that before Christianity made it to his island, people were going around devouring each other. Yes, it is probably true.

Actually the guy from Tongo was over-generalizing the situation.  The vast majority of mammals instinctively avoid eating members of their own species for sustenance.  Nobody is certain why, but it may be that too many diseases (especially viruses, prions) are vectored that way.  There's a theory right now, for instance, that Tazmanian Devils are going extinct because they routinely scavenge the bodies of their own dead, which might be why they're all dying from a virus-induced tumor disease.  Animals don't need a religion to teach them not to eat each other--natural selection takes care of that.

Humans are a notable exception, but in all documented cases of cannibalism, people only routinely eat each other as part of a religious ceremony--and not for sustenance.  In Tongo in the old days, you might eat a little piece of a dead enemy warrior to absorb some of his strength as part of a heavily-ritualized, communal ceremony.  But the calorie intake was insignificant--to live you ate pigs, chickens, fish and plants.

Let me emphasize that--people eat each other *because of* religion, and not from a lack of it. 

All Christianity does is swap one form of ritual religious cannibalism for another--a literal form for a symbolic form.  What is the communion after all? 

 

 

"All Christianity does is swap one form of ritual religious cannibalism for another--a literal form for a symbolic form.  What is the communion after all?"

 

Actually it's called, Transubstantiation.

Transubstantiation (in Latin, transsubstantiatio) is the change of the substance of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ occurring in the Eucharist according to the teaching of some Christian Churches, including the Roman Catholic Church. In Greek, it is called μετουσίωσις (see Metousiosis). (WIKI)

 

This is the fruit of the church and the main point of the mass, this is a reminder and a commitment that we can have everlasting life through the sacrafice of Jesus. At the last Supper, Jesus told his diciples "Do this in memory of me". Its really quite beautiful and has nothing to do with canibalism. I love how atheist try to portray it as vile and discusting when it very much the opposite.  

 

"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning..." -CS Lewis


Lux
Theist
Posts: 204
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Textom wrote: rpcarnell

Textom wrote:

rpcarnell wrote:
During the debate, some guy from a small island in Asia (I may be mistaken) clained that before Christianity made it to his island, people were going around devouring each other. Yes, it is probably true.

Actually the guy from Tongo was over-generalizing the situation.  The vast majority of mammals instinctively avoid eating members of their own species for sustenance.  Nobody is certain why, but it may be that too many diseases (especially viruses, prions) are vectored that way.  There's a theory right now, for instance, that Tazmanian Devils are going extinct because they routinely scavenge the bodies of their own dead, which might be why they're all dying from a virus-induced tumor disease.  Animals don't need a religion to teach them not to eat each other--natural selection takes care of that.

Humans are a notable exception, but in all documented cases of cannibalism, people only routinely eat each other as part of a religious ceremony--and not for sustenance.  In Tongo in the old days, you might eat a little piece of a dead enemy warrior to absorb some of his strength as part of a heavily-ritualized, communal ceremony.  But the calorie intake was insignificant--to live you ate pigs, chickens, fish and plants.

Let me emphasize that--people eat each other *because of* religion, and not from a lack of it. 

All Christianity does is swap one form of ritual religious cannibalism for another--a literal form for a symbolic form.  What is the communion after all? 

 

 

"All Christianity does is swap one form of ritual religious cannibalism for another--a literal form for a symbolic form.  What is the communion after all?"

 

Actually it's called, Transubstantiation.

Transubstantiation (in Latin, transsubstantiatio) is the change of the substance of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ occurring in the Eucharist according to the teaching of some Christian Churches, including the Roman Catholic Church. In Greek, it is called μετουσίωσις (see Metousiosis). (WIKI)

 

This is the fruit of the church and the main point of the mass, this is a reminder and a commitment that we can have everlasting life through the sacrafice of Jesus. At the last Supper, Jesus told his diciples "Do this in memory of me". Its really quite beautiful and has nothing to do with canibalism. I love how atheist try to portray it as vile and discusting when it very much the opposite.  

 

"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning..." -CS Lewis


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Lux wrote: Textom

Lux wrote:
Textom wrote:

rpcarnell wrote:
During the debate, some guy from a small island in Asia (I may be mistaken) clained that before Christianity made it to his island, people were going around devouring each other. Yes, it is probably true.

Actually the guy from Tongo was over-generalizing the situation. The vast majority of mammals instinctively avoid eating members of their own species for sustenance. Nobody is certain why, but it may be that too many diseases (especially viruses, prions) are vectored that way. There's a theory right now, for instance, that Tazmanian Devils are going extinct because they routinely scavenge the bodies of their own dead, which might be why they're all dying from a virus-induced tumor disease. Animals don't need a religion to teach them not to eat each other--natural selection takes care of that.

Humans are a notable exception, but in all documented cases of cannibalism, people only routinely eat each other as part of a religious ceremony--and not for sustenance. In Tongo in the old days, you might eat a little piece of a dead enemy warrior to absorb some of his strength as part of a heavily-ritualized, communal ceremony. But the calorie intake was insignificant--to live you ate pigs, chickens, fish and plants.

Let me emphasize that--people eat each other *because of* religion, and not from a lack of it.

All Christianity does is swap one form of ritual religious cannibalism for another--a literal form for a symbolic form. What is the communion after all?

 

 

"All Christianity does is swap one form of ritual religious cannibalism for another--a literal form for a symbolic form. What is the communion after all?"

 

Actually it's called, Transubstantiation.

Transubstantiation (in Latin, transsubstantiatio) is the change of the substance of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ occurring in the Eucharist according to the teaching of some Christian Churches, including the Roman Catholic Church. In Greek, it is called μετουσίωσις (see Metousiosis). (WIKI)

 

This is the fruit of the church and the main point of the mass, this is a reminder and a commitment that we can have everlasting life through the sacrafice of Jesus. At the last Supper, Jesus told his diciples "Do this in memory of me". Its really quite beautiful and has nothing to do with canibalism. I love how atheist try to portray it as vile and discusting when it very much the opposite.

 

A distinction in search of a difference. You believe it's flesh and blood instead of it literally being turned into such. Symbolic cannibalism exchanged for the literal.

It does show how window dressing and pomp can make the mundane seem special. Taking in the body and blood of christ sounds so much better than eating a tasteless wafer and drinking some wine.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Lux
Theist
Posts: 204
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: Lux

jcgadfly wrote:
Lux wrote:
Textom wrote:

rpcarnell wrote:
During the debate, some guy from a small island in Asia (I may be mistaken) clained that before Christianity made it to his island, people were going around devouring each other. Yes, it is probably true.

Actually the guy from Tongo was over-generalizing the situation. The vast majority of mammals instinctively avoid eating members of their own species for sustenance. Nobody is certain why, but it may be that too many diseases (especially viruses, prions) are vectored that way. There's a theory right now, for instance, that Tazmanian Devils are going extinct because they routinely scavenge the bodies of their own dead, which might be why they're all dying from a virus-induced tumor disease. Animals don't need a religion to teach them not to eat each other--natural selection takes care of that.

Humans are a notable exception, but in all documented cases of cannibalism, people only routinely eat each other as part of a religious ceremony--and not for sustenance. In Tongo in the old days, you might eat a little piece of a dead enemy warrior to absorb some of his strength as part of a heavily-ritualized, communal ceremony. But the calorie intake was insignificant--to live you ate pigs, chickens, fish and plants.

Let me emphasize that--people eat each other *because of* religion, and not from a lack of it.

All Christianity does is swap one form of ritual religious cannibalism for another--a literal form for a symbolic form. What is the communion after all?

 

 

"All Christianity does is swap one form of ritual religious cannibalism for another--a literal form for a symbolic form. What is the communion after all?"

 

Actually it's called, Transubstantiation.

Transubstantiation (in Latin, transsubstantiatio) is the change of the substance of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ occurring in the Eucharist according to the teaching of some Christian Churches, including the Roman Catholic Church. In Greek, it is called μετουσίωσις (see Metousiosis). (WIKI)

 

This is the fruit of the church and the main point of the mass, this is a reminder and a commitment that we can have everlasting life through the sacrafice of Jesus. At the last Supper, Jesus told his diciples "Do this in memory of me". Its really quite beautiful and has nothing to do with canibalism. I love how atheist try to portray it as vile and discusting when it very much the opposite.

 

A distinction in search of a difference. You believe it's flesh and blood instead of it literally being turned into such. Symbolic cannibalism exchanged for the literal.

It does show how window dressing and pomp can make the mundane seem special. Taking in the body and blood of christ sounds so much better than eating a tasteless wafer and drinking some wine.

 

I suppose poetry makes no sense to you, only words bereft of meaning. nobody takes the "wafer" or drink the wine and thinks it's snack time 

"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning..." -CS Lewis


Lux
Theist
Posts: 204
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: Lux

jcgadfly wrote:
Lux wrote:
Textom wrote:

rpcarnell wrote:
During the debate, some guy from a small island in Asia (I may be mistaken) clained that before Christianity made it to his island, people were going around devouring each other. Yes, it is probably true.

Actually the guy from Tongo was over-generalizing the situation. The vast majority of mammals instinctively avoid eating members of their own species for sustenance. Nobody is certain why, but it may be that too many diseases (especially viruses, prions) are vectored that way. There's a theory right now, for instance, that Tazmanian Devils are going extinct because they routinely scavenge the bodies of their own dead, which might be why they're all dying from a virus-induced tumor disease. Animals don't need a religion to teach them not to eat each other--natural selection takes care of that.

Humans are a notable exception, but in all documented cases of cannibalism, people only routinely eat each other as part of a religious ceremony--and not for sustenance. In Tongo in the old days, you might eat a little piece of a dead enemy warrior to absorb some of his strength as part of a heavily-ritualized, communal ceremony. But the calorie intake was insignificant--to live you ate pigs, chickens, fish and plants.

Let me emphasize that--people eat each other *because of* religion, and not from a lack of it.

All Christianity does is swap one form of ritual religious cannibalism for another--a literal form for a symbolic form. What is the communion after all?

 

 

"All Christianity does is swap one form of ritual religious cannibalism for another--a literal form for a symbolic form. What is the communion after all?"

 

Actually it's called, Transubstantiation.

Transubstantiation (in Latin, transsubstantiatio) is the change of the substance of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ occurring in the Eucharist according to the teaching of some Christian Churches, including the Roman Catholic Church. In Greek, it is called μετουσίωσις (see Metousiosis). (WIKI)

 

This is the fruit of the church and the main point of the mass, this is a reminder and a commitment that we can have everlasting life through the sacrafice of Jesus. At the last Supper, Jesus told his diciples "Do this in memory of me". Its really quite beautiful and has nothing to do with canibalism. I love how atheist try to portray it as vile and discusting when it very much the opposite.

 

A distinction in search of a difference. You believe it's flesh and blood instead of it literally being turned into such. Symbolic cannibalism exchanged for the literal.

It does show how window dressing and pomp can make the mundane seem special. Taking in the body and blood of christ sounds so much better than eating a tasteless wafer and drinking some wine.

 

I suppose poetry makes no sense to you, only words bereft of meaning. nobody takes the "wafer" or drinks the wine and thinks it's snack time 

"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning..." -CS Lewis


Lux
Theist
Posts: 204
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
sorry, i have no idea why it

sorry, i have no idea why it keeps double posting