1. Comment #125018 by Matt7895 on February 10, 2008 at 6:02 pm

Simply superb. This is how Dinesh D'Souza should be handled in all future debates.... I doubt we'll see Boteach again.

I particularly enjoyed Hitchens' use of 'big boy' as a put down. I laughed out loud several times... I haven't done that in a while. It seems the audience enjoyed it too, it was evident that by the end they were firmly on Hitchens side. The Rabbi just put his foot in his mouth too many times.

As Hitchens Watch says in their review of the debate: "...whatever one feels about Hitchens, it was impossible not to enjoy his systematic and merciless destruction of his loathsome opponent."

Other Comments by Matt7895

2. Comment #125021 by Skep on February 10, 2008 at 6:12 pm

Boteach was terrible. He couldn't even make a good case, let alone a successful joke.

Is there more than meets the eye? How did he get to be a Rabbi at Oxford? Why did Dawkins debate him 4 times? Watching Hitchens debate this guy was like watching the Harlem Globetrotters trounce the Washington Generals. Were Boteach not so irrationally confident, vitriolic and just plain wrong all in the guise of being "friendly" watching the "debate" would be like watching someone kicking a puppy (Boteach would be the puppy, of course). You cold practically see Hitchens checking his watch.

Other Comments by Skep

3. Comment #125031 by dazzjazz on February 10, 2008 at 6:42 pm

Boteach comes across as a cretin and Matt's comparison with D'Souza is spot-on. Boteach didn't make sense at all. Just goes to show the mental gymnastics required to be a rabbi, priest, imam etc.


Well done Hitchens! Did Boteach buy your 100 books yet?

Other Comments by dazzjazz

4. Comment #125037 by maton100 on February 10, 2008 at 7:41 pm

Hitch smoked him. Boteach sounds like D'Souza without his hearing aid.

Other Comments by maton100

5. Comment #125039 by Foth on February 10, 2008 at 7:46 pm

This was a massacre. It was really really ugly.

Other Comments by Foth

6. Comment #125041 by mountainpix on February 10, 2008 at 7:50 pm

The sad thing is that it seems Boteach is knowingly dishonest in making his feeble arguments, or at minimum, he allows himself to avoid recognizing obvious contradictions and falsehoods. For example, he claims to believe in evolution so long as it is guided by God, but he then goes on to make the, "where are the transitional species?" argument. Evolution guided by God would still require transitional species. He is either dishonest or deluded.

Other Comments by mountainpix

7. Comment #125042 by Foth on February 10, 2008 at 7:50 pm

Did Hitchens really say idiot children? That makes me sad.

Other Comments by Foth

8. Comment #125043 by Richard Dawkins on February 10, 2008 at 7:53 pm

Boteach was terrible. He couldn't even make a good case, let alone a successful joke.

Is there more than meets the eye? How did he get to be a Rabbi at Oxford? Why did Dawkins debate him 4 times?

How did he get to be a Rabbi at Oxford? Easy. He moved from America to a house in the city of Oxford and set himself up as a rabbi. He persuaded students at Oxford to set up an unofficial Jewish student group, which he supervised and financed (he had considerable financial resources, which seem to have come from a Jewish organization in New York). He never had any official standing at the University of Oxford at all.

Why did I debate him 4 times? I didn't. He organized debates, with himself as chairman, and I sometimes took part in debates with the outside visitors that he imported, for example Robert Winston. Boteach was a surprisingly impartial chairman, but he was always just a chairman, never a debater in any of the debates that I attended.

Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

9. Comment #125046 by Foth on February 10, 2008 at 8:13 pm

I don't think Richard would have wasted 4 whole debates on Boteach anyway. Listen to him talk about evolution! He reminds me of those baptist preachers I listened to every Sunday years ago.

Other Comments by Foth

10. Comment #125047 by righton on February 10, 2008 at 8:14 pm

Comment #125041

"For example, he claims to believe in evolution so long as it is guided by God, but he then goes on to make the, "where are the transitional species?" argument."

I have gotten this same thing many times when talking to christians. They will say they believe in evolution but they will continue to come up with arguments against it. It usually turns out that they only believe in parts of evolution, like "micro-evolution". I dont think the words "micro" and "macro" evolution should be used by scientists because they are misleading. A few of the christians i have talked to will say that they think micro evolution is possible but cannot not lead to a new species. They also think that macro evolution means some kind of large change(macro) into a new species.

Other Comments by righton

11. Comment #125050 by peahix on February 10, 2008 at 8:35 pm

boteach's mental gymnastics and extreme ignorance are on full display here, unfortunately hitch didn't have sufficient time to refute every single inane point. the stuff about mathematical probability was particularly inane.

however, i'd like to point out a couple things. on the whole business of the high court in israel, etc, if you listen back you'll find that hitch DID in fact slip up in his statement and tried to smooth it over after he was caught out by saying something like "...the rabbinical court AND the high court..." so his rather forceful reaction to boteach's challenge was a unjustified in this particular situation because he did, apparently, state inaccurate information. haven't looked up precisely what he said in _god is not great_, but at least here he seems to have mis-spoken.

another thing is that i don't quite buy his oft-repeated challenge about naming a moral act that could not have been done by an atheist, etc. actually, it's not the first part i disagree with, it's the 2nd part, or "corollary," as he puts it. the problem is, when he says "name an evil act that could only have been done because of belief in god," he leaves out the other logical part of this proposition, which is "name an evil act that could only have been done because of lack of belief in god."

now, i personally don't believe that lack of belief in god is likely to lead to evil acts (at least not as frequently/easily as believing in a god who condones genocide, slavery, etc), but it can easily be argued that it can and does. it's simply a matter of examining what any given atheist's interpretation is of the state of affairs where there is no god. the default position is for the question of god to not matter on the question of ethics and morality, but certainly some will take the absence of an ultimate authority figure as a license to do whatever they please. just look at the theists who say things like "without god, i'd be out there raping and murdering!" presumably for such a person, such acts could only be done if they were an atheist.

obviously you can argue about the levels of justification in theistic amoral acts vs atheistic amoral acts, but nevertheless, to be fair, hitch should acknowledge this further point in his challenge. to not do so is, i think, intellectually dishonest and manipulative.

Other Comments by peahix

12. Comment #125054 by morgantj on February 10, 2008 at 8:48 pm

I thought it was funny and enlightening how Hitchens was so calm when he spoke, even after Boteach would be so excited, preachy, and attacking. I also thought that Boteach seemed to debate Hitchen's book more then he debated Hitchens himself in the debate. Boteach did not provide any compelling evidence to support his belief in the existence of god, nor could he even clearly define the god he believed in.

Other Comments by morgantj

13. Comment #125056 by Mango on February 10, 2008 at 8:51 pm

Mr. Boteach is willfully ignorant or willfully mendacious. He accepts that humans and chimpanzees share 98% of our genes but in the next breath says "so what, watermelons and jelly fish are both 98% water." Of course that is not a valid analogy -- we are discussing DNA, not water content of inter-cellular tissues.

Other Comments by Mango

14. Comment #125061 by rhlong on February 10, 2008 at 9:05 pm

Boteach really didn't make much sense at all.

Other Comments by rhlong

15. Comment #125064 by dragonfirematrix on February 10, 2008 at 9:07 pm

My comments on Christopher’s opening remarks…

Right out the gate, Christopher Hitchens hits all the humanity nails on the head over, and over again with education, logic, reason, and a calm character. I love Christopher’s logical proof of the falsity of design (intelligent, or otherwise I presume). I would have a very hard time keeping my cool with the radical rants of the religious. Chris deserves a metal for his patience. I do hope that the human race grows out of the fantasies of religion before religion destroys all we know.


My comments on Rabbi Boteach’s opening remarks…

Right out the gate, Rabbi Boteach jumps into a blinding religious emotionalism, quoting bible verses, ranting about the problems with sex though he claims eight children, and he went off on a tangent about sex and circumcision. Why are the religious so worried about the sex parts of other people? Are the religious that terrified with the pole and the hole? I have only heard about two minutes of the Rabbi, and I already feel like I am in a religious School Gym Class receiving my daily proselytizing. I see no need to flag more of the Rabbi’s speech. I do hope that the human race grows out of the fantasies of religion before religion destroys all we know.

Other comments as I go…

The phenomenal complexity of life on Earth is through the millions and billions of years of evolution (balance, rebalance, balance, and rebalance, not to mention the survival of the most fit). I do not believe in “POOF, THERE IT IS” as the Rabbi appears to mandate...

Huckabee represents the Rabbi’s Neanderthals in America. Speaking of Neanderthals, I live about six miles from Liberty University where dinosaurs are only a few thousand years old, well at least on “their” campus, but no where else in the world. Huckabee spoke there.

I tell you what. I need not comment further on this debate. I know where I stand, and I stand with Christopher Hitchens. Now, I will spare further analysis and listen to the rest of the debate without further comment except for this last repeat, which is...

...I do hope that the human race grows out of the fantasies of religion before religion destroys us all.


Wayne (Forest, VA USA)

Other Comments by dragonfirematrix

16. Comment #125065 by bosshlk on February 10, 2008 at 9:08 pm

"Even dumber than you look now."

Absolutely fantastic!

Other Comments by bosshlk

17. Comment #125066 by chuckgoecke on February 10, 2008 at 9:21 pm

Boteach display some of the most breathtaking inanity in his misunderstanding of the science I've ever witnessed(I didn't partake in the Dover trial). Most of his arguments had the tone of extreme Zionist apology, as if Israel needs an apologist, especially one as inept and down right nasty as he. Except for about doubling my blood pressure, this debate was quite enjoyable.
chuck

Other Comments by chuckgoecke

18. Comment #125067 by Mbee on February 10, 2008 at 9:24 pm

This is amazing.

How someone can completely misstate Evolution theory and provide no evidence to support his argument as to an alternative is just pathetic.

I would much rather believe in an argument that is supported by evidence than an argument that has none!

Other Comments by Mbee

19. Comment #125068 by peahix on February 10, 2008 at 9:37 pm

not to mention that fact that boteach shrieks "where's the evidence?!?" with respect to evolution, whilst:

a) demonstrating an immense degree of ignorance about the evidence for evolution

and

b) failing to have any problem whatsoever with the complete lack of evidence for the existence of his god

Other Comments by peahix

20. Comment #125070 by MikeV on February 10, 2008 at 9:50 pm

WOW!

I was so pissed off while watching this debate.
It was like watching a screeching monkey shouting out creationist propaganda.

He's made so many errors when talking about evolution that it's obvious that he has NOT studied it.

Monkeys randomly typing on a typewriter?
Where are all the transitional fossils?
Misquoting Darwin about the eye?
Saying that Stephen Jay Gould doesn't believe in evolution?
etc...

Is this guy an idiot? YES HE IS.

Other Comments by MikeV

21. Comment #125072 by tacitus on February 10, 2008 at 10:07 pm

Wow, I've never heard a creationist claiming that Gould rejected evolution before. That was pretty brutal -- the more the Rabbi began to rant, the wilder and dumber his claims became.

And he wasn't really interested in debating the subject at hand, he spent the whole time trying to refute specific passages of Hitchens' book. And I guess we've just found another flea to add to the growing list.

Other Comments by tacitus

22. Comment #125073 by Jeffersonian-Marxist on February 10, 2008 at 10:11 pm

I was amazed at the Rabbi's ignorance of Greco-roman history. He equated the military state of Sparta with Hellenistic culture, and then he went on to make Antiochus Epiphanes seem as though he was the embodiment of Greco-roman attitude and culture. Either he is just plain ignorant of the history of atiquity or he is willfully decitful to make a point.

Other Comments by Jeffersonian-Marxist

23. Comment #125074 by Mango on February 10, 2008 at 10:25 pm

The more Mr. Boteach spoke the more rope he was making to hang himself intellectually.

The flailing and flapping arms only added to his caricature of a caricature.

"You asked for white noise and you got it." - Hitchens to the moderator

Other Comments by Mango

24. Comment #125076 by cerbera on February 10, 2008 at 10:28 pm

Four debates with RD ? Interesting. Where can we see those, I wonder ?

Other Comments by cerbera

25. Comment #125077 by Skep on February 10, 2008 at 10:29 pm

"Why did I debate him 4 times? I didn't. He organized debates, with himself as chairman, and I sometimes took part in debates with the outside visitors that he imported, for example Robert Winston. Boteach was a surprisingly impartial chairman, but he was always just a chairman, never a debater in any of the debates that I attended."

My apologies. I made the mistake of assuming his characterizations in the 92nd St. Y debate were based in fact rather than farcical extrapolation or bald-faced lies. In the debate Boteach said he was a "Rabbi at Oxford" and that he "debated Richard Dawkins 4 times" (I'm paraphrasing). I fell for his claim hook, line and sinker. He used that characterization in the debate to bolster his credibility and supposed amateur "expertise" in evolutionary biology, implying that your knowledge either rubbed off on him or that he held his own against you. Alas, such attempted bootstrapping turned out to be in vain as Hitchens was more than a match for Boteach even on the topic of evolutionary biology. And even where Boteach should have had some home field advantage (the 92nd St Y was founded as the "Young Men's Hebrew Association") it was clear from the audience reaction that Hitchens had the crowd, not Boteach.

I had thought that to imply a falsehood was considered wrong in Judaism even if a statement is technically correct. One would think this would be especially true for Rabbis. Apparently not in Boteach's case.

By Boteach's logic, I suppose I could become a "Resident Skeptic" at Oxford by taking a nap on an Oxford park bench and could also claim to have "debated" Richard Dawkins merely on the basis of the one response above--but such claims would be knowingly disingenuous.

I consider myself a tad foolish for having presumed the honesty of someone because of his authority in a religious organization. Sigh...I really should know better.

Other Comments by Skep

26. Comment #125078 by eXcommunicate on February 10, 2008 at 10:37 pm

Hitchens' opening statement is blistering. He actually delivers it with gusto! I am impressed.

Other Comments by eXcommunicate

27. Comment #125079 by Skep on February 10, 2008 at 10:40 pm

11. Comment #125050 by peahix on February 10, 2008 at 8:35 pm
however, i'd like to point out a couple things. on the whole business of the high court in israel, etc, if you listen back you'll find that hitch DID in fact slip up in his statement and tried to smooth it over after he was caught out by saying something like "...the rabbinical court AND the high court..."

I think Hitch might be on a bit of a ledge on this issue, but to find one story that might be in error in Hitchens book is not to prove that God exists and is the is the source of morality! All Hitchens has to do, if the story turns out to be false, is say so and move on. All the rest stands and the issue has no bearing on the rest of his book.

There are follow ups by Hitchens and Boteach on the 92nd St. Y on this issue. Hitches provides the proof of the citation he was referring to. But, the source is vague on details and could be apocryphal. What is clear, though, is that Boteach's slanderous claim that Hitchens is just "making things up" is a crock. Hitchens did not make the claim up and the citation proves it. Botaech's argument was false. And regardless of whether the story relayed by the source is accurate or not, Boteach has not proven that natural selection is false, that morality requires god (well, not just "god" but the Hebrew God), nor that Stephen J. Gould didn't believe in natural selection!

Other Comments by Skep

28. Comment #125080 by ryaninaustin on February 10, 2008 at 10:43 pm

So, does anyone know if the "100 book" bet was resolved?

Other Comments by ryaninaustin

29. Comment #125081 by SamHandwich on February 10, 2008 at 10:50 pm

That was an great. I just really hated how Botaech was screaming the entire debate.

Other Comments by SamHandwich

30. Comment #125082 by mejdrich on February 10, 2008 at 11:10 pm

Has anyone followed up on the Jewish court that Hitchens sited?

Other Comments by mejdrich

31. Comment #125085 by Zzyx1170 on February 10, 2008 at 11:37 pm

I placed an mp3 of this on RapidShare at:
http://rapidshare.com/files/90852272/Hitchens-vs-Boteach.mp3

Other Comments by Zzyx1170

32. Comment #125086 by Skep on February 10, 2008 at 11:40 pm

Has anyone followed up on the Jewish court that Hitchens sited

Boteach ("America's Rabbi" (whether they want him or not)), having thoroughly lost the debate decided to latch on to this straw, even to the point of publishing an article in the Jerusalem Post, reproduced on his own website:

http://www.shmuley.com/articles.php?id=575

There is a followup on the 92y website:

http://blog.92y.org/index.php/weblog/item/rabbi_shmuley_boteach_and_christopher_hitchens_the_debate_continues/

I am writing on a point of principle and a point of information. I quote from the opening page of Chapter 1 ["A Closed Utopia?"] of Dr. Israel Shahak's book Jewish History, Jewish Religion (Pluto Press 1994):

This book, though written in English and addressed to people living outside the State of Israel, is, in a way, a continuation of my political activities as an Israeli Jew.

Those activities began in 1965-6 with a protest which caused a considerable scandal at the time: I had personally witnessed an ultra-religious Jew refuse to allow his phone to be used on the Sabbath in order to call an ambulance for a non-Jew who happened to have collapsed in his Jerusalem neighborhood.

Instead of simply publishing the incident in the press, I asked for a meeting with the members of the Rabbinical Court of Jerusalem, which is composed of rabbis nominated by the State of Israel.

I asked them whether such behavior was consistent with their interpretation of the Jewish religion. They answered that the Jew in question had behaved correctly, indeed piously, and backed their statement by referring me to an authoritative compendium of Talmudic laws, written in this century. I reported the incident to the main Hebrew daily, Haaretz, whose publication of the story caused a media scandal.

As you may remember from the event at the 92nd Street Y on Wednesday evening January 30th, I was challenged by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach to provide a source for an assertion I had made on Orthodox teaching in this respect, and promised by him that he would buy 100 new copies of my book if I could materialize my point. I hereby submit this excerpt, and beg three things of you:

1) That those who subscribed to the broadcast version of the debate are made aware of my response.
2) That Rabbi Boteach is likewise made aware of it (I have no channel of communication to him).
3) That one of you agrees to act as arbiter until the task - surely quite easy - of consulting the relevant Haaretz files has been completed. I think the burden here now rests with Boteach, though I shall meanwhile institute some inquiries of my own.

I take this opportunity to say that it is always a distinction to be invited to appear on your platform.

Sincerely,
Christopher Hitchens

To which "America's Rabbi" responded:

Dear Christopher,
Thank you very much for your email which I only received this morning. And, let me thank you for agreeing to the debate the other night. Your email divined my own weekly article on the subject (Jerusalem Post: "Christopher Hitchens and the racist Jewish court") which was written Saturday night and Sunday. After you mentioned that Shahak was your source, I investigated the incident. As you surely know, Lord Immanuel Jacobovits, one of the world's leading medical ethicist's [sic] and the highly respected late Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom and member of the House of Lords, exposed Shahak's letter as a fraud a year after it was written. I enclosed my article on the same. Interestingly as you will see, Shahak does not mention name of the Rabbinical court (there are hundreds of Rabbinical courts in Jerusalem). Less so does he cite a single source within Talmudic law, because he knows the Talmud says the exact opposite, that the Sabbath is desecrated to save the life of a non-Jew. Even if Shahak were to be a source, and Shahak, as you know (he was a close friend of yours) has made many sourceless defamatory allegations against Jews, such as my article says, your book still says that, "many" Rabbinical courts say that Jews must not save the life of a non-Jew on the Sabbath. I ask you to please therefore cite another source which would justify your statement of "many."

Shahak refers to a single incident, and even then, not one where the Sabbath would even be desecrated. There is no prohibition in allowing one's phone to be used on the Sabbath, as you no doubt know. The prohibition is using it yourself. And, second, after reading my article on the subject, would you please respond? I, too, asked that the readership of the 92nd Street Y please be made aware of my article on the subject, and of Christopher's email citing Shahak as the source, and my comments on the same. I welcome the appointment of an arbiter and I agree that those who watched the debate around the world should be made aware of my article and Christopher's email. And, I will await Christopher to bring more sources to justify the "many" he cites.
Wishing you all the best.
Sincerely,
Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Boteach is grasping at straws, having nothing else to grasp after his rather pathetic showing at the 92nd St. Y debate. As is the tradition with people who have lost all rational argument regarding their main claims, Boteach is attempting to distract people from his utter failure to prove his points by now attacking Hitchens on a minor tangential issue.

So, Rabbi, how about that proof that natural selection is impossible and that only the Hebrew god can be the source for morality (apparently all Buddhists are busy raping and pillaging since they don't follow the Torah)? Don't forget to explain the rationality of requiring a first cause for humans but not for god...

One may have noticed how Rabbi Boteach decried the evil of rape and then invoked the morality of Ten Commandments as the antidote to evil--failing to notice the contradiction and irony in the fact that the Ten Commandments consider it more important to prohibit the coveting of one's neighbors' donkey than to prohibit rape--yes, truly the most perfect distillation of morality ever... It never occurs the the Rabbi that perhaps replacing the exhortations against adultery, idolatry and covetousness with prohibitions on torture, rape and slavery would be the moral thing to do, yet because he must claim that the Torah is the perfect distillation of morality he cannot admit this obvious fact, and humans must suffer the consequences of his cognitive dissonance.

A Rabbi in America, sure. "America's Rabbi," my arse. I fell for that shtick once above when he implied he was an official Rabbi at Oxford when, in fact, he was no such thing. While calling himself "America's Rabbi" doesn't imply an official position (in this case), the unmerited egotistical self-aggrandizement is nauseating. The man appears to be a remarkable narcissist. I'm not granting him any benefit of doubt again.

Other Comments by Skep

33. Comment #125089 by MichaelJSimpson on February 11, 2008 at 12:10 am

Is Richard really "dear friends" with this fool? Say it isn't so.

Other Comments by MichaelJSimpson

34. Comment #125090 by automath on February 11, 2008 at 12:11 am

There maybe a case to be argued that says we should remove the rope before someone comes along and puts it around their own neck. I think any case so made, for such a proposal, would be vastly overstated.

Other Comments by automath

35. Comment #125091 by mejdrich on February 11, 2008 at 12:16 am

Thanks, Skep. It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out.

Other Comments by mejdrich

36. Comment #125094 by arthursanford on February 11, 2008 at 12:29 am

Jeffersonian-Marxist I like your login name. Influenced by IF Stone, no?

Hitchens is in top form here. I can see why Dawkins complements his "Richard Burton voice" and "broad grasp of history."

Other Comments by arthursanford

37. Comment #125098 by DalaiDrivel on February 11, 2008 at 12:57 am

"Some Design Huh?"

Indeed.

Methinks God shot himself in the foot with that one.

Very similar in the fact to the way Boteach bloodied his lower appendages with every pin-drop silence following an incredibly mis-managed joke (non-joke?) delivery.

Really... people with no sense of humour should not fall under such dangerous self-delusions of wit. It's very very awkward and depressing.

I remember reading as well in Bill Brsyons's "A Short History of Nearly Everything" about the scarce likelihood that a creature will be fossilised.

Not very.

I'm not so troubled by Boteach's transitional fossil argument.

Other Comments by DalaiDrivel

38. Comment #125100 by AdrianB on February 11, 2008 at 1:05 am

By the way, has anyone come across any audio/video of the 21/1/08 Hitchens debate with Jay Richards, "moderated" by Ben Stein?

Other Comments by AdrianB

39. Comment #125111 by Saerain on February 11, 2008 at 1:48 am

I skipped Boteach's arguments just like I do D'Souza's, until Gillman's two questions. I do not usually skip the opposition, but when it comes to D'Souza and Boteach I simply cannot listen to their screeching voices. If they had subtitled Boteach's words, I would have been able to mute and read, but listen to him I cannot.

By the way, I presume that everyone noticed, but Boteach didn't answer the first question from the audience. The question was, 'Is it possible to talk about the existence of God without asking the question "When you say "'God'", what do you mean?"' but he answered the question within the question, rather than the question itself.

And he dodged the second question by attacking Hitchens, when Hitchens didn't even ask it.

But I love that the audience laughed every time Gillman reacted to Boteach.

Other Comments by Saerain

40. Comment #125116 by Duffman6 on February 11, 2008 at 1:58 am

Boteach is obnoxious in his attempts to both belittle Evolution and exaggerate to the extreme any form of religion. Before quoting any excerpt of scientist or theologian, he would prime it with, "The most famous american scientist that ever lived and obviously the smartest man ever to walk this planet says..." then continue with something that helps his cause. That, and quite frankly, wailing his arms about and yelling in a high pitched voice "COME ON PEOPLE OPEN YOUR EYES!" or succumb himself to sounding like an 8-year old girl by yelling 'I'M SORRY!' when Hitchens diligently pointed out a fallacy in his blabbering, outspoken argument doesn't do a single, positive thing for the religion he represents. Also the countless contradictions, both saying 'I support evolution', then follow with 'Richard Dawkins is one of the last men who supports long-term evolution'. Your classic, textbook example of a Strawman argument mixed in with sympathetic, wishy-washy emotional baggage exaggerating the meaning of life, way too frequently pointing his finger and whining that Hitchens is being unfair. However, where he absolutely fails- to me- is his constant idolization of Judaism. He is way out of line to believe that The Golden Rule is exclusive to Judaism, or even religion, and even more so out of line to say that charity is religious and anyone who is charitible succumbs to religion. Its rubbish, absolute rubbish. You hear it way too many times from a Judeo-Christian apologist, the argument (I'm sure it has a name) that all morality comes from spirituality, that Evolution doesn't explain beauty, and so forth. And his sheer ignorance is appalling, how "We've found oil and gold, WE'VE FOUND EVERYTHING!", typical Behe-esque foolery.

Hitchens, on the other hand, is calm and precise. I too laughed out loud at some of his comments, especially the subtle bitterness such as 'I'm not the one with the burden of proof' or 'You asked for it- you asked for white noise and you got it'. His introduction was superb, absolutely superb. Religion was indeed mankind's first and worst philosophy. Like Harris was with Rabbi Wolpe, he calmly refutes- literally massacres- religious pretenses. And, like Harris, with every debate I see of him I respect him more and more. Fantastic.

Other Comments by Duffman6

41. Comment #125126 by Mr.E on February 11, 2008 at 2:22 am

I agree with Duffman6, couldn't have said better myself.

By the way does anyone know is this up for downloading anywhere?

Other Comments by Mr.E

42. Comment #125147 by passutoba on February 11, 2008 at 2:56 am

Boteach's argument on the paucity of the fossil record was particularly laughable...something along the lines of 'We've dug up most of the planet..and what have we found?'

How much of the planet have we really 'dug up'....? I'm guessing something south of 1%, and even then when were fossils actively being looked for? And that's aside from what DD correctly says above linking to the unlikeliness of a fossil forming.

Other Comments by passutoba

43. Comment #125159 by Random_Interrupt on February 11, 2008 at 3:16 am

The term "Evisceration" comes to mind.

Other Comments by Random_Interrupt

44. Comment #125174 by Mike in FNQ on February 11, 2008 at 3:28 am

Boteach has occasionally popped up on TV here in Australia. He struck me as mildly amusing, mildly inane and not really of note. I find my opinion of him falling after viewing this.

I struggle to believe that some of his claims in this video can be put down to ignorance. He claims to have studied evolution in preparation for earlier debates, and then says what he does about Gould?

On the other side, I think this was one of Hitchens's more impressive performances amongst many.

Other Comments by Mike in FNQ

45. Comment #125183 by Matt7895 on February 11, 2008 at 3:37 am

He claims to have studied evolution in preparation for earlier debates, and then says what he does about Gould?

Not to mention the old 'irreducible complexity' chestnut.

Other Comments by Matt7895

46. Comment #125189 by Gustaf Sjoblom on February 11, 2008 at 3:50 am

How on earth is it possible that these debates are still going on when one side has been practicing the technique of 'you win the debate today, they won't check the facts until tomorrow'.

That technique should not be able to keep a nation uneducated for over 100 years, partly in a time period that we call the age of information!

Anybody who is interested in truth would find out that the Rabbi is either a liar and/or an idiot in no time. And then this should be passed on from friend to friend until everyone who cared about truth would have a decent grasp of what is real and what is not and after seeing that the lying/idiocy is almost exclusive to one side...

I just don't get it.

Other Comments by Gustaf Sjoblom

47. Comment #125191 by Slyer on February 11, 2008 at 3:53 am

He said that scientists say the world is 16 billion years old...
I don't know how to demonstrate one's ignorance more clearly.

Other Comments by Slyer

48. Comment #125203 by Matt7895 on February 11, 2008 at 4:10 am

He said that scientists say the world is 16 billion years old...
I don't know how to demonstrate one's ignorance more clearly.

Maybe he meant scientologists? :P

Other Comments by Matt7895

49. Comment #125208 by Adam Morrison on February 11, 2008 at 4:18 am

Boteach displays an intelligence closely resembling that of a wet brick.

He doesn't debate, he randomly shifts between personal attacks and misconstrued evidence while the whole time shrieking with a madness that would rival Claudius or King George.

Every time he opens his mouth to spew forth a new miasmic stream of vacuous nonsense I have the urge to view my lunch for a second time.

If Boteach is 'America's Rabbi' I feel immensely sorry for my Jewish friends living in the US.

Other Comments by Adam Morrison

50. Comment #125215 by Mike in FNQ on February 11, 2008 at 4:30 am

With Shmuley's comments about digging up the planet... I wonder how he would react to digging up his synagogue, his front yard, or around the wailing wall.

As for the discussion about Hitchens’s claim of an Israeli rabbinical court ruling about breaking the Sabbath to save a non-Jewish life, I think the ball is certainly in Hitchens's court. I would like to see more than just a reference to Shahak's book.

Other Comments by Mike in FNQ