Willow!

Dead_Lioness

Godless
May 31, 2002
21,160
121
63
45
Arlington, Virginia
Visit site
Announcing a special appearance by Christopher Hitchens in Washington, DC on June 13th--sponsored by CFI-DC

Title of Event: Christopher Hitchens LIVE--Hitch 22: A Memoir
Date: Sunday, June 13, 2010
Time: 6:00 PM
Place: Sixth & I Historic Synagogue 600 I Street NW, Washington, DC 20001
Sponsor: Center for Inquiry-Washington, DC


I'm going!
 
I just sent an email to the venue about him signing the books. $30 seems fair for this event, for sure. As it stands, it's a "if I have the money, I'll try to go." If they get back to me and tell me that he'll be signing the books, as well, it'll change to "if I have the money, I'll be there."
 
I went through a pretty big Hitchens phase a few months ago, where I would scour the web for any and all debates and conversations, and would listen to them religiously (derp!) at work.

Hitchens is an arrogant snot, who knows he's the smartest guy in the room but would never admit it.
Or, the guy you want at your dinner party.


My favorite debate (Fry dominates as well):



[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ER83SF3-DoY&feature=related[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PP6e5q6OtA&feature=related[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeeRuJ6eBUw&feature=related[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYWl5Zw2kbU&feature=related[/ame]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
haha Brooks, those are awesome! I too, like to listen to every bit on youtube from him and other 'stars' in the field of atheism ;)
Ive seen those videos, and goddamn, I remember that voice of that Catholic moron lady... *shoots head* she is the definition of the most annoying British voice ever. hahaha

I love Hitchens, he's an asshole and arrogant but I love him :)
 
What'd you think of that debate?

WLC is probably Hitchens most formidable debater, I've got to say. The problem is that he's a professional apologist, not an actual 'doer' of anything significant (which is Richard Dawkins reason for refusing to debate him). His job is to create circular and un-assailable arguments, specifically that of the moral imperative, really the apologists only bedrock defense - which is a tough one to crack.

I know that Sammy H is trying his best to come up with an argument for a scientific base of morality, and though I have to admit I haven't gotten too far in researching and critiquing his argument, he's going to have a bit of a tough time with it, I imagine.
 
Hitchens is my favourite atheist author when it comes to arguing his stance from a cultural and historical perspective. I also LOVE his dry and bitter sense of humour.
 
What'd you think of that debate?

WLC is probably Hitchens most formidable debater, I've got to say. The problem is that he's a professional apologist, not an actual 'doer' of anything significant (which is Richard Dawkins reason for refusing to debate him). His job is to create circular and un-assailable arguments, specifically that of the moral imperative, really the apologists only bedrock defense - which is a tough one to crack.

I know that Sammy H is trying his best to come up with an argument for a scientific base of morality, and though I have to admit I haven't gotten too far in researching and critiquing his argument, he's going to have a bit of a tough time with it, I imagine.

WLC is a smart guy and a good debater but his argument, as you said, is constructed to be almost impregnable. He always begins by saying, 'If atheism is true'....atheism can't be true or false, by definition.

As far as the moral argument goes, I don't see why this is so controversial. I'm sitting here in my room staring at a book called 'The Evolution of Moralty' by Richard Joyce. It has a perfectly plausible explanation for moral behavior. I realize that we don't know for sure where altruism comes from, but science is working on it. Brain science is pretty new as far as fields of study go. That is kind of my point on the whole thing, too - science can't tell us right now, for certain, why we are moral. But with the track record of science, why wouldn't people give it the benefit of the doubt and say yea, in x many years we'll have an answer? It should be coming shortly, anyway. Anthropological roots of good and evil is going to be my PhD dissertation in 2011, and out of that, or within that study, I will cover morality for sure.