Christopher Hitchens debates William Dembski on 11/18

[Halfcentaur]

Early on, Dembski seemed to be projecting every short coming his position maintains on Hitchens' position. The projections are so literal it's a little unsettling. He was almost listing point by point the faults of his own view.

 

[Halfcentaur]

Yea. Heck, people even cling magnets to the fuel lines in their cars, just for the promise of saving a few bucks on gas. Lots of people do lots of silly stuff.

I guess that having common sense is something you have let go of if you want to become a believer. Would be an interesting study, i guess, to see what the correlation is between religious people and people who buy into all sorts of nonsense. My bet is a high one.

Greetings,

Chris

You're a cat, right? I find it hard enough typing with my hooves, but I have hands too. I prefer the challenge for one, and for another the sound of the clippity clopping.

 

[Halfcentaur]

I am also intrigued to hear that Dembski was once a new ager who identified himself as a Hindu in college applications, and that his father was a biologist and proponent of evolution. I wonder what his relationship with this father was like. His new age ties suggest a possible rebellious motive that makes his creationist mindset seem to make a lot more sense.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

While that is true, i'm wondering if he is aware of the implications of that. Sure, the debate took place in one of these brainwashing institutions. However, i'm pretty sure that quite some people in the audience must have noticed that Dembski was not engaging in any debate at all, that he was ignoring almost any points Hitchens brought up.

I'd like to know how many there noticed that, and got thinking about the tactics that Dembski used. And frankly, it's not only Dembski who uses that kind of tactics. Oh, and i found it pretty amusing that Dembski later accused Hitchens of sidestepping questions and arguments, while everyone could see that it was him who almost exclusively did exactly that.

That debate was a wonderful display of the arrogance and ignorance that so many believers show. After all i think that he did a good service for atheist by acting in that way. Instead of waiting for atheists to tell people about the disgusting tactics of believers, he simply showed them first hand, in all their glory.

It also explains the mindset of some of the believers we have here in this forum. If such people are where they get their arguments, logic skills and debating tactics from, it's no surprise that here they act they way they do.

Greetings,

Chris

The brainwashed probably don't watch these debates, they might hear something that would disturb them.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Early on, Dembski seemed to be projecting every short coming his position maintains on Hitchens' position. The projections are so literal it's a little unsettling. He was almost listing point by point the faults of his own view.

"Deflection by reflection", or the Pee-Wee Herman Defense. "I know you are, but what am I?"

 

[MattTheTubaGuy]

interesting debate.
to be perfectly honest, I found a lot of what Dembski said a bit confusing.
I will have to watch it again sometime.
what the hell was with the prayer at the end though?!

 

[AnnoyingPony]

I wanna see this so freakin' bad. Is it recorded? Where can I find it?

 

[Puppycow]

You'd be wrong on that point.

Jeremiah 10:2-4 (KJV)
2Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them.
3For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe.
4They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.

So apparently Hitch is practicing the way of the heathen.

I stand corrected. "The LORD" specifically forbids Christmas trees according to the Bible.

Good thing I'm an atheist, 'cuz I like those "heathen" trees "decked with silver and gold."

 

[Questioninggeller]

I am also intrigued to hear that Dembski was once a new ager who identified himself as a Hindu in college applications, and that his father was a biologist and proponent of evolution. I wonder what his relationship with this father was like. His new age ties suggest a possible rebellious motive that makes his creationist mindset seem to make a lot more sense.

That is an interesting point. And Dembski, who is now a Baptist, was raised a Catholic.

In Dembski's The Design Inference (1998):

Finally, I wish to commend three members of my family: my parents William J. and Ursula Dembski, to whom this monograph is dedicated, and without whose ...

In Dembski's The Design Revolution (2004) no mention of Dembski's family:

DEDICATION: To John and Dorothy Van Gorp, my wife’s parents, salt of the earth.

There is a peer-reviewed paper by William J. Dembski titled:

Histochemische Untersuchungen über Funktion und Verbleib eu-und oligopyrener Spermien von Viviparus contectus (Millet 1813),(Gastropoda, Prosobranchia) WJ Dembski - Cell and Tissue Research, 1968

There are no mentions of William J. Dembski or his parents in any of Dembski's published works after 1998. He has not discussed his parents influence or early childhood at all in his books, beyond citing creationist texts that influenced his thinking.

 

[Questioninggeller]

I wanna see this so freakin' bad. Is it recorded? Where can I find it?

The entire debate video is available here:

http://www.pcawebcast.com/2010debate/

 

[Puppycow]

There is a peer-reviewed paper by William J. Dembski titled:

Different guy, unless he wrote it when he was 7 or 8 years old, and in German.

ETA: Oh, you meant his father. My bad.

 

[Questioninggeller]

Different guy, unless he wrote it when he was 7 or 8 years old, and in German.

Are you talking about William A Dembski or William J Dembski (his father, the biologist)?

 

[Orthoptera]

interesting debate.
to be perfectly honest, I found a lot of what Dembski said a bit confusing.
I will have to watch it again sometime.
what the hell was with the prayer at the end though?!

To understand the prayer, you have to realize the debate was sponsored by and conducted at a Christian school; you can't really expect the school to let an atheist have the last word, so to speak. The parents of the kids would be really upset: I imagine many were none too happy to have Hitchens in the first place.

 

[Puppycow]

Are you talking about William A Dembski or William J Dembski (his father, the biologist)?

Sorry, I got mixed up there.

 

[kuroyume0161]

It seems that the 10 part debate has been removed from YouTube!

"This video has been removed by the user."

I was half-way through when I had to go to work. Damn!

 

[shadron]

Yeah, I managed to get all the way through it and dump out a bunch of comments before it was all wiped away.

Some impressions: Hitchens was very much on his mettle. He was off the cuff, seemed to be cognizant of the age of his audience (though he didn't talk down or over-simplify). Demski read his parts off his speech text (not even notes). He started out by saying he was going to do 5 minutes on god's existence, and 10 on god's goodness, and then launched into an attack on Hitchens and his book that went for the whole time. It was like no one told him what the debate was supposed to be about.

Overall, no shouting or histrionics, though in a few places it got impersonally heated. They were very polite to each other.

The audience of teens seemed to be quite into it. Hitchens got applause on a number of (to me) surprising points. In his parting shot Demski pretty strongly denounced Hitchen's stand on Mother Teresa (I assume this was his promised "zinger"), and Hitchens came back with a pretty stark statement that left no doubt about how he felt about her. Hitchens final statement was beautiful, countered by the moderator in his "prayer".

An interesting fact: on youtube I read perhaps 600 or so comments in teh couple of hours the 10 parts were up. In those I read exactly one comment from a fundamentalist, and he was a Moslem. For youtube, that is unheard of. I suppose the word just didn't get into the Christian community. Maybe.

I can imagine there's going to be some long discussion at the next pastoral staff meeting. Love to be a fly...

 

[marplots]

Hitchens is such a powerful speaker, I can only guess that someone didn't do their homework when he was invited. The contrast between Hitch and the usual stereotype of "evil atheist" must have been stunning. In a community that values authority figures and speachifying, his razor-sharp thinking and beautiful delivery simply mows down the wannabes.

"Here my lads is Truth, bright and shining. Learn to appreciate the taste of it; come to crave it; accept no shallow substitute."

I'd love to see this go viral in the Christian community. Especially in that age group, because Hitchens is so, so... admirable. We atheists need to invent a God, just so we can make Hitchens His prophet.

 

[kuroyume0161]

Seems that the College itself may have requested the removal to the person who made the videos available on YouTube (see red notice on the following page). Nonetheless, the full debate is available at their website in three parts:

http://www.pcawebcast.com/2010debate/

Hitchens' closing is absolutely brilliant. Every time he speaks, I am more endeared to him. And he pulls this stuff out of his intellect without prepared speeches and lengthy notes. Bloody brilliant!

 

[Susheel]

I am also intrigued to hear that Dembski was once a new ager who identified himself as a Hindu in college applications, and that his father was a biologist and proponent of evolution. I wonder what his relationship with this father was like. His new age ties suggest a possible rebellious motive that makes his creationist mindset seem to make a lot more sense.

Not sure that new agers are proponents of creationism. But having been a Hindu and coming from India, I can tell you for a fact that while Hinduism has a creation myth like all religions, no one wishes it to be taught as fact in schools. They are very well aware that evolution makes more logical sense.

 

[Halfcentaur]

Not sure that new agers are proponents of creationism. But having been a Hindu and coming from India, I can tell you for a fact that while Hinduism has a creation myth like all religions, no one wishes it to be taught as fact in schools. They are very well aware that evolution makes more logical sense.

Perhaps I was not clear. He is now a creationist Christian, but was once a new ager and later a claimed himself a Hindu after leaving his biologist father's household. He claims this all in in the debate, as if he had a spiritual journey that led him eventually to Jesus. I was alluding to all these things on their own merits, not lumping them all together. The fact he was into new age thinking and Hinduism is only connected by his alternative thinking at the time.