christopher hitchens

[norseamd]

Sandorski isn't in any position to evaluate valid arguments.

Are you even aware of the variety of eyes, and how primitive eyes are on more distant relatives?

 

[fskimospy]

Sandorski isn't in any position to evaluate valid arguments.

Hey guys look, a creationist is telling people that they aren't good at evaluating arguments.

If you want to fuck up one thread by having it filled with people trying to explain grade school biology to you that's one thing, but keep it in there. I know it's not your fault that you weren't taught better to begin with, but it IS your fault that you won't learn now.

 

[buckshot24]

Are you even aware of the variety of eyes, and how primitive eyes are on more distant relatives?

Are you aware of what a circular argument is?

 

[buckshot24]

Hey guys look, a creationist is telling people that they aren't good at evaluating arguments.

If you want to fuck up one thread by having it filled with people trying to explain grade school biology to you that's one thing, but keep it in there. I know it's not your fault that you weren't taught better to begin with, but it IS your fault that you won't learn now.

Mad? A circular argument is still a circular argument no matter who points it out. And what "grade school" biology am I denying? Be specific, very specific.

 

[norseamd]

Are you aware of what a circular argument is?

You know I was thinking of AronRa while thinking of Christopher Hitchens, and thinking while I like him and his videos, especially his phylogeny video, I really can not be bothered to spend much attention at all on the creationist debate because it is of such waste to me to even consider those debates, although many thanks to those who waste themselves countering inane bullshit, but this might be good.

So continue on.

 

[norseamd]

If this is as good as vapid right wing crappers who do not understand basic world affairs 101 and basic warfare 101, yet continue to refuse to learn those topics at all, then this might be somewhat entertaining.

 

[fskimospy]

Mad? A circular argument is still a circular argument no matter who points it out. And what "grade school" biology am I denying? Be specific, very specific.

Haha, no. Don't mistake contempt for anger. You are simply not capable of effectively evaluating arguments as shown in both your embrace of creationism and your inability to grasp what was being measured in the racism in hiring thread. So stop.

If you're wondering what basic biology you're denying, there's a whole thread full of it for you to peruse.

 

[fskimospy]

The funny thing is I have this friend who is a born again Christian and a creationist. He is a huge fan of Hitchens even though he obviously disagrees with him on anything pertaining to religion.

I thought he had a major wit and I always enjoyed listening to him debate. Even when he was wrong (ahem, the Iraq War?) his wrong opinions were often edifying.

I always really enjoyed Hitchens's writing, even when he made me want to pull my hair out. Despite absolutely hating his ludicrous stance on Iraq, I was very sad to see him die. There hasn't been anyone that's replaced his intelligence and wit that I've seen.

 

[buckshot24]

You know I was thinking of AronRa while thinking of Christopher Hitchens, and thinking while I like him and his videos, especially his phylogeny video, I really can not be bothered to spend much attention at all on the creationist debate because it is of such waste to me to even consider those debates, although many thanks to those who waste themselves countering inane bullshit, but this might be good.

So continue on.

Hitchens is (was) heads and shoulders above Ra who is a complete joke.

 

[buckshot24]

Haha, no. Don't mistake contempt for anger. You are simply not capable of effectively evaluating arguments as shown in both your embrace of creationism and your inability to grasp what was being measured in the racism in hiring thread. So stop.

If you're wondering what basic biology you're denying, there's a whole thread full of it for you to peruse.

Contempt? Wow. I don't believe unobservable fantasies about the power mutation and I deserve contempt? I think I'll place you back on the list with that.

 

[kage69]

incorruptible?!? is this our long lost incorruptible??

His kind of fail does seem familiar, doesn't it? Probably just another butthurt religious culture warrior trying to muddy the waters of debate though.

Not surprised, Hitch does this to their kind. They've been on the receiving end of Hitch's unmerciful logic and reason for awhile now, I suppose we shouldn't expect them to have weathered that without any issues.

I'm guessing even those who consider themselves religious are wondering what buck is smoking. He's demolished everyone who has ever tried to take him on and youtube is there for people who doubt this.

I'm sure buck's issue with Hitch and his issues with evolutionary biology are completely unrelated though, gotta be. :biggrin:

 

[norseamd]

I always really enjoyed Hitchens's writing, even when he made me want to pull my hair out. Despite absolutely hating his ludicrous stance on Iraq, I was very sad to see him die. There hasn't been anyone that's replaced his intelligence and wit that I've seen

Have to admit even thought I am kinda debating whether he was at least a decent intellectual or tactful pundit, he has such a wit and eloquence that you just have to have some admiration for the guy.

 

[norseamd]

incorruptible?!? is this our long lost incorruptible??

Is that the right wing text-generator spambot?

 

[buckshot24]

He's demolished everyone who has ever tried to take him on and youtube is there for people who doubt this.

I've watched just about every one of his debates. Do you have a link to a demolition?

 

[norseamd]

His kind of fail does seem familiar, doesn't it?

That kind of psychological fail can be most amusing.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Great Debater, whit, and Wordsmith. As a Debater, he wasn't always fair and would use various persuasion techniques that are Logical Fallacies(Appeals to Emotion were common), however, so did his opponents. All who dared to debate him were always challenged and even the best of them often came away dazed by how he took the audience away from them.

To be fair, mostly he won debates because he was debating monumentally stupid people who were arguing a losing position from the get-go. Nobody can successfully debate the truth of religious nonsense against a well-prepared skeptic, the facts are stacked against them. The skeptic is always going to win because the other side is so full of holes.

 

[fskimospy]

Contempt? Wow. I don't believe unobservable fantasies about the power mutation and I deserve contempt? I think I'll place you back on the list with that.

lol. Yes, you deserve contempt for your denial of science and your proud ignorance.

This magical list gets funnier every time I come on or off of it. Enough of this stupidity for this thread though.

 

[kage69]

I've watched just about every one of his debates. Do you have a link to a demolition?

I expect someone who boasts of spending hours a day at the beach to have a tan, as well as not needing directions to get there.

Oh dear. Was the sound on? I'm at a loss to square your claim of fluency here with the rest of your posts.

 

[Ricochet]

Are you aware of what a circular argument is?

Most used circular argument: The bible is true because it is the inspired word of god. God exist because the bible says so.

Hitchens left his mark so profoundly that even after his death, butthurt creationists are still reeling.

This thread proves it.

 

[buckshot24]

Most used circular argument: The bible is true because it is the inspired word of god. God exist because the bible says so.

That is circular. Now, do you agree that appealing to existing eyes as any part of an argument for the evolution of eyes is circular?

 

[PingviN]

That is circular. Now, do you agree that appealing to existing eyes as any part of an argument for the evolution of eyes is circular?

It's not, no.

 

[MajinCry]

A demolition by Christopher Hitchens? Well, here he is givin' a Rabbi a going over for him seeing genital mutilation as a triviality. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xx_ov2NiNo4

About his stance on Iraq; wasn't it that the US had to get rid of Saddam, a tyrant that the US put in place, as it is the fault of the US?

 

[Ricochet]

That is circular. Now, do you agree that appealing to existing eyes as any part of an argument for the evolution of eyes is circular?

Not sure what you're getting at. I don't see how the gradual change of something that exist in the past to something that exist in the present would represent circular argument.

 

[buckshot24]

It's not, no.

Why not?

I just got down watching some more of Hitchens here are some of the things he says that I find to be wrong or misrepresentations.

1. You need religion to be good people.

Nobody makes this argument and he was corrected on this many many many times in his debates.

2. Everybody is an atheist when it comes to other gods, like Zeus or Thor.

In no way is anybody who believes in a god or the Christian God an atheist. This is simply definitional.

3. Religious people do bad things.

So what? Nobody is saying "religion" makes people good. This has nothing to do with the existence of God.

4. Says there are good explanations for the origin of life that don't include a "prime mover".

When confronted with quotes of the scientists who say that we haven't got a clue he say their statements are only about "uncertainty". If they are so uncertain how could there be "good explanations"?

 

[norseamd]

Not sure what you're getting at. I don't see how the gradual change of something that exist in the past to something that exist in the present would represent circular argument.