DiscussMormonism.com

I have not quite ever seen Christopher Hitchins "Hitchslapped" so violently in kindness ever! I am just stunned at how well, gently, and powerfully straight forward with no slobbering rhetorical flourishes of intellectual snobbery John Lennox dismantled and destroyed Hitchins pet peevish "theories" with actual historical, scriptural, and religious prowess. This is one debate for the record books. It would be of exceptional opportunity to see some Mormon apologists attempt to carry a debate off so very astonishingly well as their Christian friends do. I suspect the difference is, the Christians are far better versed, and certainly have far greater faith in their version of truth than Mormons do, but I could be wrong. In the meantime, this debate just blew me off my chair of the pure power of Lennox.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPBdaz0n094

It’s all about the accent! Hitchens normally wins because he’s British but we all know Irish is superior

drumdude wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 22, 2022 4:46 pm

It’s all about the accent! Hitchens normally wins because he’s British but we all know Irish is superior

Hitchins just had a lot to contribute for helping us how to think, and for that I am sincerely grateful for him and his astounding intellect. But he was wrong on many important things, and he acknowledged it, which also made him great.

Philo Sofee wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 22, 2022 5:22 pm

drumdude wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 22, 2022 4:46 pm

It’s all about the accent! Hitchens normally wins because he’s British but we all know Irish is superior

Hitchins just had a lot to contribute for helping us how to think, and for that I am sincerely grateful for him and his astounding intellect. But he was wrong on many important things, and he acknowledged it, which also made him great.

Which important things? I’m watching the video now and I’m not seeing, at all, what you’re seeing.

- Doc

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 22, 2022 5:23 pm

Philo Sofee wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 22, 2022 5:22 pm

Hitchins just had a lot to contribute for helping us how to think, and for that I am sincerely grateful for him and his astounding intellect. But he was wrong on many important things, and he acknowledged it, which also made him great.

Which important things? I’m watching the video now and I’m not seeing, at all, what you’re seeing.

- Doc

Oh, I didn't mean in this particular video, sorry! I can see how the way I typed that you thought it was in this one.

Philo Sofee wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 23, 2022 2:59 pm

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 22, 2022 5:23 pm

Which important things? I’m watching the video now and I’m not seeing, at all, what you’re seeing.

- Doc

Oh, I didn't mean in this particular video, sorry! I can see how the way I typed that you thought it was in this one.

So, why don't you post the video or videos in question? I've watched a lot of Hitchens v. Evangelicals and he always held his own, if not won practically all the debates, and he would usually do the debates in hostile territory.

I’d wonder what it was that Lennox said that was interesting or thoughtful. He seemed to fill his turn to speak with misunderstanding and misrepresentation as if there’s no possible meaning without god. Be that as it may, I like to grant Mormons some charity, Lennox and company have had centuries of people thinking through a faith and real life. And in the end it doesn’t seem to me Lennox and co are faring much better than Mormons, even with the dominant religion and way of thinking supporting their every assumption.

I listened through this debate and it provided a few bits to think about. I find Lennox more listenable to that some folks. I think it is a broad subject so both speakers simplified to a degree that I found myself thinking, yes but on the other hand, about both sides presentation.

Hitchins has an instinct to locate the worst and lamest versions of Christian faith. He is a valuable critic.

I think Lennox has a point that peoples belief in God is an inspiration to think more deeply about moral values, to see more clearly the value of other people and to view more seriously our failures. I think Lennox realizes that atheists are not prevented from doing these as well. He suggests that atheists have a broader door to exit those concerns or ignore those concerns if they wish to so choose.Hitchins rightly points out religious people have their own ways to exit moral responsibility.

I think there is a link between science expecting order and the idea of God. I am not sure that the causal chain is religion begets science. I suspect a developing search for understanding of order altered religion and begat science. The two are linked but as siblings.

Can we search for truth if we are just chemical mechanisms with no creator? Lennox presents this uncertain and problematic view . Their was no room in the debate to determine whether this is valid and it may be something beyond clear determination. I am aware and respect the consideration proposed by Mr Darwin that once you have creatures using their nervous system to make judgements about reality as part of choices they make, improvement of that ability will be selected for.