Hitchens vs Boteach
Posted: 15 February 2008 09:36 AM   [ Ignore ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1814
Joined  2006-11-10

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnMYL8sF7bQ

Hitchens actually looks bored debating this pompous imbecile.
It can not be a good sign for the good Rabbi that even the moderator thought he was a whining, annoying fool.

 Signature 

“You know I’m born to lose, and gambling is for fools.
But that’s the way I like it baby, I don’t want to live forever.”

From the autobiography of A.A.Mills, ‘The passage of time, according to an estranged, casual tyrant.’

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 February 2008 09:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1763
Joined  2006-08-20
Sander - 15 February 2008 02:36 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnMYL8sF7bQ

Hitchens actually looks bored debating this pompous imbecile.
It can not be a good sign for the good Rabbi that even the moderator thought he was a whining, annoying fool.

The moderator was a crack up for sure! He had to bring Boteach back to earth several times. At one point Hitchens correctly identified the rabbi’s ranting “white noise”. I think that Hitchens enjoys exposing his victims for the idiots they are. “Left for dead” as he would say.
Boteach reminded me of D’Sousa with Dennett. As Dennett calmly turns up the the heat, referring to D’Sousa’s ideas about evolution and physics as “cartoon caricatures”, D’Sousa raises the volume and rants, and preaches actually. All the righteous indignation of the true believer comes out.

 Signature 

The ants are my friends, they’re blowing in the wind, the ants are blowing in the wind.

Dog is my co-pilot

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 February 2008 11:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]  
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1568
Joined  2006-03-02

What do you guys think?  As I was listening to Boteach, I started thinking that here is a guy that Hitchens should not be debating.  He is obviously quite a nut and providing a forum for him to express his silly views may not be such a good idea.

On the other hand, I do think that Hitchens is on to something when he says that when confronted with views such as those espoused by Boteach, the only thing that needs to be done is to underline them.

 Signature 

What do I care for a hell for oppressors? What good can hell do, since those children have already been tortured? And what becomes of harmony, if there is hell? I want to forgive. I want to embrace. I don’t want more suffering. And if the sufferings of children go to swell the sum of sufferings which was necessary to pay for truth, then I protest that the truth is not worth such a price.
-Ivan Karamazov

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 February 2008 11:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1814
Joined  2006-11-10
waltercat - 15 February 2008 04:17 PM

On the other hand, I do think that Hitchens is on to something when he says that when confronted with views such as those espoused by Boteach, the only thing that needs to be done is to underline them.

Yeah pretty much.

It is like those Phelps people who protest at the funerals of gay soldiers.
We should have these fuckers on TV every day.

 Signature 

“You know I’m born to lose, and gambling is for fools.
But that’s the way I like it baby, I don’t want to live forever.”

From the autobiography of A.A.Mills, ‘The passage of time, according to an estranged, casual tyrant.’

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 February 2008 05:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  306
Joined  2007-10-24
Sander - 15 February 2008 04:38 PM

It is like those Phelps people who protest at the funerals of gay soldiers.
We should have these fuckers on TV every day.

I heartily agree - to anyone with half a brain, these people are complete nut jobs.  It’s so frustrating to me, though, that the power of denial and rationalization is huge with the average theist.  How many embarrassing news reports, debates, books, speeches, etc, will it take for a theist to finally take the imbecility of it all seriously? 

I do adore Hitchens.  wink  That comment about white noise was classic.  It’s admirable that he’s able to continue through these debates with intelligence and patience.  He demonstrates a strong commitment to the advancement of humanity.  What a great man!

 Signature 

Modern science has been a voyage into the unknown, with a lesson in humility waiting at every stop. Many passengers would rather have stayed home.
          —Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 February 2008 02:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]  
Newbie
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  44
Joined  2007-12-22

Holy Crap..lololol…

Thank you so much for posting this… i just finished watching the entire debate..

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again… Hitchens is truly a Genius of debating…

Now, yes, Boteach, was a fanatic…. but at the same time, he was more interesting to hear than some of the other Rabbi’s I’ve watched in debates…... 

I would love to see these two go at it again… Hell, 93 Minutes!!!... it should have been 3 hours.. I would have watched the entirety…

Again, thank you for posting the link.. .smile

 Signature 

I am a leader and a Follower, for you can not be one without the other.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 March 2008 05:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]  
Newbie
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  26
Joined  2007-06-14

Although Boteach was obviously outclassed by Hitch’s intellect, wit and unrivalled ability to debate on the fly - I always have a nagging doubt about how constructive these public debates are. There is always the risk that the debate gets dragged down to the Bart Simpson level by a claim like Boteach’s that Stephen J. Gould didn’t believe in evolution.

As Stephen J. Gould observed, even gracing these people with a platform with which to debate gives them publicity they dont deserve. I can’t help thinking that for someone sitting on the fence, maybe watching an episode of Carl Sagan’s “Cosmos” or listening to a lecture by Neil deGrasse Tyson might be time better spent.

P.S. why is it that people like Boteach can only think in one dimension? when reflecting on the evolution of the Universe they can either talk quantities or they can talk time - never both at the same time when it comes to debating the likelihood of life arising by chance alone, they never see that it is the mind boggling quantities of stars/galaxies COUPLED with the immense passages of time that makes life statistically almost inevitable - I would say absolutely inevitable, but so far we only have ourselves as a perfect example of what can happen in an isotropic, homogeneous Universe - so I dont quite want to stick my neck out!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 March 2008 07:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  3
Joined  2008-03-05

That was fantastic!!!

Profile
 
 
   
 
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed