Christopher Hitchens VS William Dembski
Options
ThaChozenWun
Members Posts: 9,390
Someone I know put me onto this video about a week ago and I was watching it finally the last couple of hours and figured it be interesting to put up here for discussion. It's a debate between Atheist Christopher Hitchens and Creationist William Dembski and by far has to be one of the worst debates I have ever seen come from a creationist. It really goes to show how ignorant religious folks are being that the entire crowd applauds Dembski on points that are non-existent and most of the time are nothing more than key notes about which books he has out available for purchase. Even on Hitchens side he is lacking his usual knack for great debate because Dembski is putting up some of the worst arguments I'm sure he has ever witnessed. For those that watch it pay attention at how many times Dembski throws out straw man arguments to lure the brain dead crowd. Also take note how the Christian church leader will not allow Hitchens to answer the crowds questions at the end.
(Debate Doesn't really start until the 9 minute mark, the first 9 are Christian mumbo jumbo about their church and where to donate.)
(Debate Doesn't really start until the 9 minute mark, the first 9 are Christian mumbo jumbo about their church and where to donate.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WDloawrRJIComments
-
dembski's a notorious liar
he goes on tv and says that "intelligent design theory" has nothing to do with religion
but he already published a book titled "intelligent design: the bridge from science to THEOLOGY" -
Lol man if you get the time Ktulu you have to watch that. It's incredible that people are applauding his come back to Hitchens explaining that evolution in it's current understanding is not Darwinism by saying that no one can prove how the eye evolved and and he has a book on sale at amazon about why Richard Dawkins can't explain an eyeball. I can't believe he even travels and debates with other scholars.
-
the evolution of the eye is better understood than most other organs, ironically
dembski? more like DUMBski LOL
but i already watched a hitchens debate this week (with tony blair) i might be hitched out -
Apart from the points made in the debate, I could see that Dembski was out for blood. It seemed almost overkill to make scientific points against evolution. It could just as well be true there are some questions left unanswered for evolution...it doesn't mean that people should arrive to the conclusion that ? exists by default...or for that matter a particular deity.
Hitchens does bring up a point about how the people of religion try to provide "the truth", and it ends up suggesting an arrogance. I can see how it could be that, however I do see where Hitchens doesn't want to consider ? 's existence even apart from what religious people say. So far, people's understanding (as well as his own) has fueled his views on the matter.
In either case, both parties are not "debating" and from a "moral" standpoint, I felt Hitchens was a lot more welcoming than Dembski. Dembski seemed more threatened than Hitchens was about their opposing views. It's like Dembski wanted to "win" the debate than present the truth. Truth doesn't care if you win or lose...just make sure the truth is known. -
well lets see if he can "evolve" past cancer.
-
like i said when one of yall posted him debating another ? , its hegelian dialectic. ? dont overstand this ? is like the nfl. you can root for whatever team u want but the only true rewards come to those who own the league (in essence owning the owners). dembski had some points but sounded stupid overall. so that makes u want to root for hitchens, right? a media ? who defeneded bush and his ilicit wars till the end.some of u ? think u soooooo smart but u some sucka muthafuckas. ? happened to logic and reason in assessing the reliability of ANYTHING hitchens got to say?
-
hitchens' support for the iraq war has been solidly grounded in fact and logic
that doesnt mean i agree with him
im just saying his argument makes a lot more sense than the average FOX talking head -
KTULU IS BACK wrote: »hitchens' support for the iraq war has been solidly grounded in fact and logic
that doesnt mean i agree with him
im just saying his argument makes a lot more sense than the average FOX talking head
lol....wrong is wrong no matter how logical the deception -
lol....wrong is wrong no matter how logical the deception
you believe in magic
your discretion is not credible -
KTULU IS BACK wrote: »you believe in magic
your discretion is not credible
what magic do i believe in?
btw, your fallacy game is just plain lazy. -
Formal debates between athiests and theists are stupid. They literally can't reach any real resolution. Athiests rely on logic and reason, and everything has to adhere to that. Theists rely on faith and it supercedes logic and reason. There are problems with both.
For instance, relying solely on logic and reason as proof for something kinda ignores the possibility that there are things beyond our understanding and ability to reason. If your are trapped in your logic, it is difficult to see things that have exceeded your logical viewpoint.
On the flipside, when all you look to is faith, there is no way to truly substantiate what you believe.
Arguments between the two are intrinsically incompatible. An athiest will ask a theist to prove ? exists. However, that is against the very nature of a theist because for a theist no proof is necessary, faith is the sole source of evidence. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »For instance, relying solely on logic and reason as proof for something kinda ignores the possibility that there are things beyond our understanding and ability to reason.
No it does not ignore that possibility.
