Full Version: Christopher Hitchens and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach Debate on God

Greatestshowonearth RD Says:

May 27, 2012 - I'm still waiting for the rabbi to present evidence of his god.

rodrigodet Says:

May 27, 2012 - You have to point out you are uncircumcised?Sorry but circumcision is just a horrible thing, if it helps ,its still perfectly doable as an adult when the the child is capable of choosing, we all know the real reason for it,religion nonsense it's essentially human branding for the sake superstition, and that is as clear cut example of evil if I ever seen one.

okorewq Says:

May 28, 2012 - Not to change the debate, but please answer me, are you for or against abortion?

okorewq Says:

May 28, 2012 - Also, there are many cultures where the men must be circumcised (I know of some ethnicities in my country Uganda). Would you consider those to be "clear-cut examples of evil" cultures as well, or does that work only when the practice is religiously affiliated?

cosmingcosma Says:

May 28, 2012 - Christopher Hitchens ... this primate ... no wonder he thinks like this ...

uruson Says:

May 28, 2012 - He seems to be saying that the practice is in itself evil.If he does not hold this stance, I certainly do.And while I'm intruding; I'm "for abortion".Blast away, I'm curious what you think about the subject.

uruson Says:

May 28, 2012 - All right, you've found an "aah-theist" who would appreciate some studies on the matter you are discussing. (atheistic distortion of facts)I'm sure you have statistics or some form of solid data to support what you're saying, no?Awaiting your reply~~Cheers!

uruson Says:

May 28, 2012 - I'm not particularly knowledgeable of the field, but the little I do know made me cringe when I heard the rabbi claim that "punctuated equilibrium" is an alternative theory to Evolution.For those interested, "punctuated equilibrium" maintains that when the climate is stable, natural selection will slow down, eventually reaching equilibrium.Should the climate then change, this will upset the balance and natural selection will kick into high gear.Please, I know very little about this, sorry.

uruson Says:

May 28, 2012 - In any case, it's a theory that explains how life can sometimes make great leaps forward.Once again, I know very little about it - but I saw no comments about it on this page so I thought it was worth mentioning it.The fact that the rabbi is so wrong about such a thing makes me think he's either incredibly ignorant about the field (I know almost nothing, yet more than him), or that he's purposefully trying to distort the facts.After the debate, I conclude the latter.Schmuley is despicable.

rodrigodet Says:

May 28, 2012 - Yes, mutilating a childs genitalia for any reason other than a the direct medical need to that childs survival or to save said genitalia is evil. Superstition , irrationality or custom are not excuses to desecrating a infant's body.

kosta194 Says:

May 28, 2012 - First of, I think that Rabbi Shmuley Boteach should learn his maths.. 1000 to the power of one million? (he says that at around 49:45) Now is he insane? The share number of atoms in the Universe is said to be 10 to the power of 70. How utterly idiotic is it to say that it would take 1000 to the millionth power of random mutations to create a horse? Gosh... That's just... meh, not worth it, I guess...

kosta194 Says:

May 28, 2012 - I guess that was a compliment..?

okorewq Says:

May 28, 2012 - I certainly disagree with you on circumcision. I do not think there are many people that would think, "genital mutilation" when they hear the word. Comparing it to removing the child's limbs is at best clumsy, or downright irrational. Removing the limbs cripples the child such that they may never walk. Can you say that circumcision harms the child as much? If it were female circumcision which involves the removal of a key sexual part from the child I would understand, but, please...

okorewq Says:

May 28, 2012 - I for a second thought that someone so appalled at circumcision were so because they care so much for the babies (though I wasn't holding my breath over it really), but it's obviously solely because it's a religious practice. If cutting off the child's foreskin made someone cringe, you would think they would make war to keep the child from being denied life itself.

rodrigodet Says:

May 28, 2012 - Alot of people also dont think "popular superstion" when they think of "religion" but that is what it is, and I didnt compare it to the removing of the limbs, its bad enough as it is I dont need to over state it.Maybe there is a comunication issue here, correct me if I am wrong but this is what I am getting from you:For the sake of custom and or culture you think is justifiable to remove a part of the genitalia of a infant?I just cant understand the reasoning behind it.

314Aurelius Says:

May 29, 2012 - Boteach got pimp slapped pretty bad in this debate.

uruson Says:

May 29, 2012 - Ah, that approach.No, my reason for being against circumcision is that it's an unnecessary practice with the explicit purpose of dulling the sexual act, and it has unknown effects on sexuality and the sense of self, like I said, I'm against the practice itself.Or in words you can understand easier:I don't care who does it, it's wrong.As for health effects, if there is no other recourse it would be immoral of me to deny someone a practice that could save their life.

uruson Says:

May 29, 2012 - As for "caring for babies", we just have different viewpoints on what constitutes something worth that care.I don't think a collection of cells smaller than my pinky trumps the freedoms of the mother with regard to her own life and safety.Frankly, at that point there is little difference from a rock, there is no capacity for suffering present in the "possible child", whereas there is much capacity for suffering because of the aforementioned "possible child".

uruson Says:

May 29, 2012 - There's also no guarantee that the "possible child" will even reach full term.It's worth noting that I do not support the practice of abortion as an alternative to condoms or other forms of contraception.That, in my eyes, is just poor sex education at work.You claim to be a Christian, what's your view on contraception?It's effectively "possible child" prevention, and can be viewed as "pre-conception abortion", so I'm quite curious what you think on the subject.

njohan81 Says:

May 29, 2012 - I hope there will be more "Hitchenslike" people in the world, in the way he thinks.

p34cekeeper Says:

May 29, 2012 - Hard to be optimistic - he was a product of the crazy world of the 70s/80s, the Cold War, an incredible academic circle - a time before the internet, even home video recorders. Its easy to forget how old he was even in this debate (in his early 60s I think).

SatchmoSings Says:

May 29, 2012 - Yeah!Here, take a look at some more hot Jewesses:watch?v=uFbkbTqT2j0As "they say," there is nothing so beautiful as a beautiful Jewess.

SatchmoSings Says:

May 29, 2012 - You sound precisely like the kind of person Israeli is supposedly butchering; you are living proof that The Holocaust has never ended only now the intended victims fight back to the point of even having NUKES mounted on ICBMs.Have a nice day!

FrogBlasters Says:

May 30, 2012 - I detest the assertion that books such as Hitchens 'God is Not Great' are hopeless, shattered or depressing. Perhaps if they call into question any hopes and dreams for an afterlife, they may well be depressing, but personally I find them empowering, intellectually stimulating, and above all they give me greater respect and love for the brief window of consciousness I have and those I have close to me to share it with. I believe there is no greater inspiration for Human Solidarity than this.

FrogBlasters Says:

May 30, 2012 - Also I find Mr Boteach's Sermon (as that is the way in which he presents his points) to be more or less completely founded on Ad Hominem, arguments from authority and Syllogistic assertions. Almost all of his statements are a sarcastic and derogatory, exasperated appeal to the dismissal of Hitchens opinions. He is not an articulate or powerful debater. This is most clearly shown at the end of the debate where his position has begun to disintegrate and his spurious attempts at logic expose him.