101. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #81238 by eXcommunicate on October 24, 2007 at 1:16 pm

Firstly, I just lost a very large comment because even though this board thanked me for my post, it had already auto-logged me out and the post was actually lost to oblivion (and the 'back' button does me no good). So, I'll try again, but with brevity:

I just slogged through all of the videos. Unfortunately, the "thrashing" we expected did not occur, and it is not entirely Hitchens' fault. D'Souza is a master of utilizing the debate format to his advantage. He holds most of his strawman arguments for his rebuttals, and due to the Q&A format, Hitchens is unable to refute. Perfect hucksterism to the nth degree. The part where it is Christopher's fault is that I think he's not used to debating with someone as articulate and finely tuned as D'Souza. D'Souza is an entirely different animal than what Hitchens is used to debating on MSNBC or Fox News. Christopher's standard boiler plate just does not 'win' with a guy like this and with an audience as ignorant as this. I think this experience will be good for Christopher and will challenge him to jump the rhetorical rut and compel him towards a more finely tuned and at the same time broader based argument for future debates - one that is flexible enough to tangle with any kid of opponent, format, and audience.

102. Eddie Tabash at AAI 07

Comment #80922 by eXcommunicate on October 23, 2007 at 2:02 pm

Eddie is great. His Galapagos lecture is a very good one too.

103. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #80646 by eXcommunicate on October 22, 2007 at 1:38 pm

I think we need a few debates that look something like a debate on the floor of the British Parliament where both sides debate and interrogate each other relentlessly. That's a debate. These debates we have here in America are utter crap. Nothing is actually said or discussed but standard boiler plate sound bites. Yes. I'd love to see a Richard Dawkins/Sam Harris tag team (or Hitchens/Harris, Dawkins/Hitchens, Hitchens/Dennett, whatever combo you'd like) go toe to toe with a Theist tag team in a true, real, argumentative, rapid fire debate, with a real moderator that demands honest answers. Each side gets 1 hour total for speaking and questioning. Each time they speak they use up time or something like in a professional Chess match - going back and forth. This "I'll make a speech, then you make a speech, then we'll sit down for a gentle Q&A session over a nice cup o' tea," format is bollocks through and through.

104. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79567 by eXcommunicate on October 17, 2007 at 6:17 pm

Rtambree: You're right, Hitchens didn't move in for the kill. I think he likes to allow people to hang themselves with their own words sometimes (as he said in the debate). And while it's obvious to us and the more discerning members of the audience that mcGrath did exactly that, the fundies in the crowd probably ate up everything McGrath said without Hitchens making that killer blow.

105. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79294 by eXcommunicate on October 16, 2007 at 6:38 pm

I think Hitch (and Dawkins) repeats himself a lot nowadays because the arguments they have to refute are simply the same old arguments over and over.

106. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79260 by eXcommunicate on October 16, 2007 at 3:35 pm

McGrath = drawn and quartered

107. The Price of Freedom

Comment #77157 by eXcommunicate on October 8, 2007 at 3:50 pm

I for one would love America to welcome her.

108. Response to My Fellow 'Atheists'

Comment #77139 by eXcommunicate on October 8, 2007 at 2:30 pm

"I'm Black" is also a "loaded label" to many bigots, but would Harris suggest African Americans stop using the term? "I'm a Republican" would be a loaded statement in New York City. "Liberal" would be a loaded label in a conversation with a conservative. It's not the problem of those that the label applies to - its the ignorance of those that perceive the label in a bigoted manner. Attitudes do change regarding labels. Isn't that what we're striving for in the first place? To change the zeitgeist and affect real change in hearts and minds? Essentially we want to change the amount of respect accorded to the labels Christian, Muslim, Wiccan, and others, so why not also change the level of respect accorded to the label "Atheist"? I'm not saying Sam is advocating we roll over and play dead - far from it! But I see real value in sticking to our guns and not abandoning a term that adequately and rationally describes the beliefs or lack thereof of the majority of non-believers. Add additional words to the movement if you like; I even prefer the term "Rationalist Movement" to encompass all kinds of views, including atheism; but "atheist" still applies to me, to Sam Harris, and to most of us at this website and I for one am still going to use it. ;)

I am with BicycleRepairMan in that we don't have to bring atheism into every political subject. Atheism is only part of Rationalism. We must first and foremost approach things from a Rationalist standpoint and if Atheism is part of the equation then apply it. No need to run from the term, but no need to cloak everything with it either. I am reminded of the term "Progressive" that liberals not unlike myself have coined to relabel themselves because "liberal" has politically become a "dirty word." The reason it's become a dirty word is two-fold: 1) The abdication of the language of debate to conservatives, and 2) Many liberals used the term to beat upon their opponents, creating a backlash against it. It's an interesting parallel to this "atheist" discussion and something we can learn from.

109. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76897 by eXcommunicate on October 7, 2007 at 4:25 pm

I appreciate the argument that morals might have evolved but there's nothing within the span of man's recorded history to support the idea that we have become better behaved over time.

110. We Few, We Happy Few, We Band of Brothers

Comment #76321 by eXcommunicate on October 5, 2007 at 1:17 pm

Watched all three videos and loved them. Thomson surely is on to something here and his lecture, or perhaps a series of lectures in a more "commercial" DVD format, should be required viewing for all High School students in a social studies class. Likewise, the questions from the audience were very astute and informative in their own right.

However, as a lover of ancient history, ancient Greek history specifically, I take to task the comment from one of the audience members at the very end of the 3rd video that Spartans enforced homosexuality in their army to solidify the "brotherhood" aspect of coalition violence. This statement has no basis in fact when taking ancient sources into account. In fact, ancient Sparta had laws that would in effect condemn a homosexual to death if he was caught. Although we know little about Spartan law, that much is true. Although homosexuality in the ranks is a foregone conclusion, the idea that it was institutionalized in the army has no basis in fact. Now if the audience member had said something about pederasty and Athens or showed any knowledge on the subject beyond "Ancient Spartans=ghey, lawllzz!!!!11!" then he might have been on to something.

111. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76115 by eXcommunicate on October 4, 2007 at 6:53 pm

Fixed Point Foundation? More like Fixed Debate Foundation.

Like others here, I think this debate's format was pretty shitty. I'm not sure if Dawkins was duped or what. A more reputable format for dissecting TGD would have been to have Lennox comment on the read passage first, then Dawkins defend, not the other way around! This tells me the debate was obviously rigged, but instead of crying over spilled milk, Dawkins mopped it up the best he could. It's encouraging that the audience replied so favorably to Dawkins, and I echo the sentiments of Teratornis in that we shouldn't always lump theists together as "idiots" or "a lost cause" and automatically switch to shouting. His example of the rise of and fall of Nazism is perfect. Kudos! And kudos to RRS for posting a Myspace Bulletin about this debate, otherwise I wouldn't have known about it last night. I thought the commentators after the event were really kind of peculiar - it sounded like a post-game show on ESPN, which is a different take on analysis of a debate of this stripe. Despite their obvious subjectivity (or perhaps because of it) I found their "analysis" quite entertaining. lol

Now, here's the kind of debate I would like to see:

Dawkins vs. Theist (whoever)

Each gets a 20-30 minute slot for a presentation, using any media they like. As the theist has something to prove (god exists) and the atheist doesn't, the Theist goes first and Dawkins makes a rebuttal.

Then comes 20-30 minutes of back and forth questioning between Dawkins and the Theist.

Then comes 20-30 minutes of a question and answer session about what just transpired between the men, with audience participation (audience questions and moderator questions).

Then a 5 minute closing from each man, again, Theist first, then Dawkins.

112. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #75379 by eXcommunicate on October 2, 2007 at 12:59 pm

Is there a nice, clean, simple word for 'something that generates strongly held beliefs independent of, or contrary to, the weight of evidence'?

113. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74667 by eXcommunicate on September 29, 2007 at 10:56 pm

I like how everyone latched onto the T-shirt comment and not the crux of the argument. The point is, in this world and the way it works, to be taken seriously they should take their entire presentation seriously. The t-shirt thing is rather minor when compared to the constant verbal assault they throw around willy nilly. They attract criticism because they put their faces in the fire, and they seem to enjoy it. As they are one of the prominent faces of atheism, it is not "elitist" to wish they would not act like assholes. I actually liked their "Blaspheme Challenge" because it was a vehicle for others (not the RRS) to make a statement.

114. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74471 by eXcommunicate on September 29, 2007 at 2:29 am

I am 26 and hold the same view. The only difference is that I detest hip hop. Electro rules, infidel!

115. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74462 by eXcommunicate on September 29, 2007 at 1:43 am

Is it the lack of professional clothes or lack of credentials which cause the RRS to come off like angry amateurs?

116. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74422 by eXcommunicate on September 28, 2007 at 6:12 pm

My disagreement is not in philosophy, but with tactics. I believe a lot of what RRS does feeds into stereotypes and perpetuates the same kind of tit for tat we criticize fundamentalist Christians for. I think RRS undermines the activities of Dawkins, Hitchens, et al. Why should I "respect" RRS when they seem to not respect anyone else? I certainly don't see the likes of RRS changing anyone's minds on anything - only hardening them. I would wager the approach of Dawkins, Harris, etcetera has won more converts than RRS screaming their heads off on an overrated obscure webcast.

I am aware of the style over substance fallacy. But imagine how seriously Dawkins would be taken if he showed up at seminars, conferences, and public lectures dressed in a grass skirt and wicker hat and berated the audience instead of his real approach. Our war is not just one of faith vs. reason (I submit that we've won that battle and we win that battle every time we're engaged), but also of winning hearts and minds of moderates and mildly spiritual. Only a fundamentalist can't see that.

117. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74169 by eXcommunicate on September 27, 2007 at 2:13 pm

They certainly fit the mold of the "stereotypical atheist" - crass, rude, rebellious, "alternative lifestyle," etc. But I think perhaps Richard sees potential in the way they reach younger people and perhaps would like to see them moderate themselves a bit more based upon his own example and that's why he associates with them. In the video of his appearance on their radio show he engages with them, but more often than not seems a little annoyed at their immaturity.

118. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74156 by eXcommunicate on September 27, 2007 at 1:30 pm

Jesus, couldn't Brian Sapient put a collared shirt on once in a while? He's meeting Richard fookin Dawkins for christsake! Part of what irks me about RRS is they always look like slobs and are completely unprofessional, almost as if they don't take anything they say or do seriously at all. Perhaps they should have let Richard know it was a t-shirt and wal-mart jeans event. Holey Christ, Sapient looks plastered on cheap near-beer. Don't get me wrong, I love RRS. I love the bravado. They certainly do kick ass, sometimes. But they would be taken more seriously if they took themselves and what they do more seriously.

119. 1996 Richard Dimbleby Lecture

Comment #73338 by eXcommunicate on September 24, 2007 at 7:20 pm

By watching these videos I am struck by how much of Dawkins' current material is the same as his old material. Hearing the anecdote about a professor being proven wrong by an American colleague for the 6th time made me roll my eyes. They are good chestnuts and I just think it's me sitting here in 2007 with the wonders of the internet that has become a little too saturated with information (having watched dozens of Dawkins and Hitchens videos on Youtube) and little to do with the quality or quantity of RD's anecdotes. I must say that watching this early video shows just how far a man, even of RD's stature, can come in the realm of public speaking over the course of 11 years. Nowadays, RD could very well give this speech with his eyes closed. Just goes to show you that the honing one's communicative skills never ceases.

120. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #73200 by eXcommunicate on September 24, 2007 at 12:35 pm

This is scandalous that a teacher in higher education has to kowtow to Creationists. This college will hopefully be shamed into re-hiring him.

121. New Rules: A Religious Test

Comment #72772 by eXcommunicate on September 22, 2007 at 10:18 pm

I like Maher, but sometimes he's pretty unfunny. I like him more when he's off the cuff and not reading "material" from a teleprompter. He's much better in interviews.

122. In Depth: Christopher Hitchens

Comment #71549 by eXcommunicate on September 19, 2007 at 2:36 am

Thanks for the Youtube and Google versions, guys! :)

123. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #70983 by eXcommunicate on September 17, 2007 at 12:00 pm

Creation demands the existence of a Creator.

124. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #70448 by eXcommunicate on September 15, 2007 at 2:16 pm

Hitchen's position on Iraq really disappointed me. Then I realized there is no good position.

125. Good News: Both our Foundations are now Officially Recognized as Charities

Comment #70321 by eXcommunicate on September 14, 2007 at 11:43 pm

How did I know someone (Cregaune) would come along and pee in our Wheaties? ;) Anyway, I think this is a good development. Just to let everyone know - applying for tax exempt status is not just as easy as filling out a few forms. Can't wait to see what comes of this! :)