1. Comment #200445 by MikedubB on June 27, 2008 at 4:49 pm

This is the best these guys can muster? It's pretty lame. No real substance. Just ignorance masked by eloquence.

Other Comments by MikedubB

2. Comment #200446 by room101 on June 27, 2008 at 4:50 pm

Damn!...they cut it off right when this tool started ridiculing Hitchens - called him an "abusive person". I would have liked to have heard what this idiot had to say about him.

If it's anything like what he said for the first 4 minutes, than it isn't worth listening to...what drivel.

Other Comments by room101

3. Comment #200447 by Jimbesity on June 27, 2008 at 4:56 pm

Hardly threatening. I find it marvelously humorous that they're just starting now to teach critical thinking inside churches. Hell, they're doing our work for us. I like this guy.

Edit: Wow! On part 4, he talks about circular reasoning. I reaaaaally like this guy now.

Other Comments by Jimbesity

4. Comment #200450 by 8teist on June 27, 2008 at 4:59 pm

Blah blah blah blah blah blah,
How on earth anyone could sit thru that garbage is beyond me .

Other Comments by 8teist

5. Comment #200451 by mordacious1 on June 27, 2008 at 5:00 pm

He starts off by saying that ridicule is not an argument. Just because christians are stupid, it does not mean that there is no god. OK, I buy that. Name-calling is irrelevant to the argument. I think he said this because he knows irate is going to call him a fucktard, but fine...I'm still waiting for him to say why any arguments that atheists use are fallacies, but must drive on maybe he'll get to it.

edit: Oh, I get it now "There is no god is an opinion" unless you can prove it. It's the old: the atheist must prove there is no god, if they can't, god must exist. No wonder Richard has to keep explaining that one can't prove there are no fairies...

Other Comments by mordacious1

6. Comment #200452 by gcooke on June 27, 2008 at 5:00 pm

Tosh tosh tosh tosh tosh.

And on top of it, some really rubbish on-screen graphics.

Other Comments by gcooke

7. Comment #200453 by Hypoluxa on June 27, 2008 at 5:00 pm

This guy is about as fallacious as what he is lecturing... having watched the 4 vids, he would be destroyed if he were to argue against Hitches, who he shows clips of ...and tries to explain to his audience about how Hitches is arguing the reason against religion..and is making fallacies. Simple cherry picking of points, and then trying to convince his audience that they don't apply to the core argument... therefor God exists!
This guy just doesnt get it.. lol Or he doesn't understand rational scientific thinking.

Other Comments by Hypoluxa

8. Comment #200454 by TeraBrat on June 27, 2008 at 5:01 pm

I thought his point that "ridicule is not an argument" was a good one.

Other Comments by TeraBrat

9. Comment #200457 by 8teist on June 27, 2008 at 5:03 pm

Jim, I think the only people who feel threatened are the fools sitting in that room listening to that clown.
They know their religion can`t cut in the real world, maybe they are starting to get desperate.

Other Comments by 8teist

10. Comment #200461 by 8teist on June 27, 2008 at 5:07 pm

When reason fails ,ridicule ,really is all that is left.

But yes, I also agree it is a valid point.







But it can be fun

Other Comments by 8teist

11. Comment #200463 by Jimbesity on June 27, 2008 at 5:08 pm

TeraBrat: I must agree with you on that one. I've always known this, but never bothered to think of a very clear and concise way to tear down an ad hominem attack in that way.

Greg's points are lacking and ill reasoned at best. He skips around so much, especially at the bit where he reviews Dawkins 'actual arguments'. He fails to mention that the ENTIRE BOOK is devoted to advancing and strengthening those arguments.

Other Comments by Jimbesity

12. Comment #200464 by stuee on June 27, 2008 at 5:11 pm

Sure, Hitchens says some things that don't have substance, but they are generally intended as jokes. If they had actually picked the wheat from the chaff as this guy is advocating, rather than the exact opposite, they almost certainly would have found substance.

Also, did this video get cut off at the end? It seemed as if the guy was just about to respond to Dawkins' arguments.

Other Comments by stuee

13. Comment #200465 by Hypoluxa on June 27, 2008 at 5:12 pm

This guy is truly oblivious to the points Hitchens and Dawkins have made...

Other Comments by Hypoluxa

14. Comment #200467 by joshie on June 27, 2008 at 5:17 pm

This guy reminds me of Rabbi Boteach from a couple of months ago. And Prof Dawkins' remark: "Anybody who has something sensible or worthwhile to say should be able to say it calmly and soberly, relying on the words themselves to convey his meaning, without resorting to yelling" applies to this as well.

See how calm Christopher Hitchens is.

Other Comments by joshie

15. Comment #200468 by lordxenu on June 27, 2008 at 5:19 pm

Whoa! Truly compelling, sir. I must immediately withdrawal all my arguments as I, as an academic, have not clue as to the nature of spiritual arguments....end satire.

Other Comments by lordxenu

16. Comment #200476 by Corona Dave on June 27, 2008 at 5:38 pm

>I thought his point that "ridicule is not an argument" was a good one.

'ad hominem' is not an argument, but I think ridicule of IDEAS can be valid, and that can extend to people who accept those ideas but only so long as you keep it focused on the idea rather than the person.

when you find yourself presented with an idea that is so stupid you don't know where to start, then using ridicule can be appropriate and kinda like answering 'mu' to a yes/no question that contains faulty assumptions.

if it's trivial to ridicule something, it suggests there is a flaw there. can someone come up with a counter to this by ridiculing a 'good idea', such as freedom of speech?

I think Hitchens ridicules Christianity when he presents his 'history of humanity according to Christianity' (humans being born and dying for 100,000 years before god steps in etc.) but I think his tone is perfect. there are ideas that are so repulsive that we should take a stand against them, and ridicule is a way of letting people know they are out of order and ought to be ashamed of themselves for believing such a thing.

I love the way Hitchens often challenges/dares religious people to say out loud what they really believe, which is an attempt to expose them (or rather, their ideas) to ridicule, but a valid one in my opinion.

Other Comments by Corona Dave

17. Comment #200480 by TeraBrat on June 27, 2008 at 5:44 pm

8teist,

Ridiculing never convinces anyone of anything. It's not only pointless it's detrimental and counter productive. It makes people dig in and entrench themselves in their arguments.

You are better off saying nothing.

Other Comments by TeraBrat

18. Comment #200483 by ivellios on June 27, 2008 at 5:50 pm

I think that he fails to realize that not only do atheists believe in god, but we think that religion is separate from god and that if you do believe you should be ridiculed at times.

I don't think that Hitchens really does much arguing about the existence of a god and really does argue against the premise of any religion.

Other Comments by ivellios

19. Comment #200488 by mordacious1 on June 27, 2008 at 6:05 pm

Tera

"Ridiculing never convinces anyone of anything."
etc. "You are better off saying nothing."

What are you saying? I can't post here anymore?

Other Comments by mordacious1

20. Comment #200492 by Epinephrine on June 27, 2008 at 6:08 pm

Ridiculing does help convince people.

Maybe not the ridiculee, but observers laughing at the ridiculee then listen more intently to the ridiculer when he goes on to make a real point.

Other Comments by Epinephrine

21. Comment #200499 by quill on June 27, 2008 at 6:23 pm

First they ignore you,
Then they laugh at you,
Then they fight you,
And then you win.

Other Comments by quill

22. Comment #200500 by Diocletian on June 27, 2008 at 6:25 pm

There is something rather amazing about someone speaking for so long and still not say anything.

Other Comments by Diocletian

23. Comment #200501 by Pattern Seeker on June 27, 2008 at 6:28 pm

Looks like someone went kookoo for 'Koukl Puffs'...

Other Comments by Pattern Seeker

24. Comment #200502 by 8teist on June 27, 2008 at 6:28 pm

Yep ,see ya later , Mord








he he , fuck ,ridicules the only weapon i got

Other Comments by 8teist

25. Comment #200503 by Corona Dave on June 27, 2008 at 6:29 pm

>First they ignore you...

when did atheists ever have the luxury of being able to ignore religion? :-)

Other Comments by Corona Dave

26. Comment #200504 by Dhamma on June 27, 2008 at 6:30 pm

*naaaw* how cute, I think he was starting to cry.

This whole speech was just full of fear. He really isn't adding anything apart from exposing how crappy the theists arguments are.

The audience is such a bunch of sheep.

Other Comments by Dhamma

27. Comment #200506 by quill on June 27, 2008 at 6:32 pm

Dave,

You misunderstand me. :)

By "they" I meant crazy persons like the one in this video.

Other Comments by quill

28. Comment #200509 by riki on June 27, 2008 at 6:42 pm

I want to know what the "Columbo Tactic" is. Have they been studying Inspector Columbo, to help dumb people appear more intelligent?

Other Comments by riki

29. Comment #200510 by mordacious1 on June 27, 2008 at 6:48 pm

8teist

I can put forth a rational argument, I just choose not to. Ridicule is much more fun and I can involve the kids, too.

Other Comments by mordacious1

30. Comment #200514 by Dhamma on June 27, 2008 at 7:03 pm

Mordacious:

I find Hitchens hilarious and he most certainly ridicules his opponents. I wonder though, is ridicule effective? I really have no clue, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's even counter-productive. Or maybe there are different ways to do it, where some may be more mind-opening.

Other Comments by Dhamma

31. Comment #200518 by croatcat on June 27, 2008 at 7:14 pm

The audience is such a bunch of sheep

Everyone should have a dashboard-bobble-head- christian in the car, at home, at the office. Minutes of entertainment guaranteed!

Other Comments by croatcat

32. Comment #200519 by Quine on June 27, 2008 at 7:16 pm

If I remember correctly the punch line to a famous joke goes, "No, I can't outrun the bear, but I can outrun you." This guy does not have to be that smart to be successful in what he is doing, he just needs to be slightly smarter than the audience he chooses to address.

Other Comments by Quine

33. Comment #200525 by comet halley on June 27, 2008 at 7:49 pm

In TGD, Richard is breaking up the one argument into six points, not giving six seperate ones.

Other Comments by comet halley

34. Comment #200526 by mordacious1 on June 27, 2008 at 7:50 pm

Dhamma

OK, I'll be serious. I have people come to me and I can see that they are open for discussion. Once I perceive this, of course I am going to have a rational discussion. Then there are the jesus bumber stickers all over the car, christian t-shirt wearing, Bush voting morons, that wouldn't change their minds even if you could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there is no god, types. If there is a god, he put these people on the planet so we can make fun of them, and I do.

There is a lady at my dentist's office that I discuss christianity with all the time. She listens to me, I listen to her, and we are both nice and respectful. I enjoy it and so does she. But, there are the other ones that I already mentioned and it is a waste of time trying, so I could ignore them or make fun of them. I choose the latter, because it makes me laugh. It's like clearthinker, that guy is never going to change his mind, so I just call him irate's word and go on my way, screw him. That's it in a nutshell.

Ps. Australia sure produces some nice red wines, the Shiraz I had for dinner was primo. yum

Other Comments by mordacious1

35. Comment #200527 by DavidJGrossman on June 27, 2008 at 7:52 pm

Same videos with comments enabled.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDNcgj6ndcU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBFjTWyVrCQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNbW4PBYVk4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eb0TeSVlwGA

- Dave

Other Comments by DavidJGrossman

36. Comment #200530 by TeraBrat on June 27, 2008 at 7:59 pm

Tera

"Ridiculing never convinces anyone of anything."
etc. "You are better off saying nothing."

What are you saying? I can't post here anymore?

Stop ridiculing me!!!! :-p

Other Comments by TeraBrat

37. Comment #200532 by mordacious1 on June 27, 2008 at 8:12 pm

Tera

Go eat some legumes and rice!

Other Comments by mordacious1

38. Comment #200535 by TeraBrat on June 27, 2008 at 8:20 pm

I guess I need to be prepared.

Other Comments by TeraBrat

39. Comment #200536 by mordacious1 on June 27, 2008 at 8:32 pm

Tera

No, no, you are banned by the Geneva Convention. I checked.

Other Comments by mordacious1

40. Comment #200539 by Andrew Stich on June 27, 2008 at 8:43 pm

It wasn't as bad as I thought it would be. However, I was concerned when he was discussing Hitchens' apparently useless arguments. The point that Hitchens was making in that excerpt was not that God doesn't exist. He was making a different argument. And it was still an argument.

I was impressed by the lecturer's having said that he would probably have been a Muslim if he had been born in another part of the world, but that just led me to being very, very unimpressed at his downplaying of this remark. He admitted that he would adopt the religion of any particular place that he was born; the religions can't all be right; therefore, factual merit of any given religion is at least mostly irrelevant; therefore, he doesn't rely on reason to come to his conclusions about God; the tenets of any given religion are extremely unlikely indeed; therefore, it is extremely unlikely indeed that he is correct in his choice of religion.

And his saying that Hitchens' argument was circular... no, Hitchens was merely establishing what sort of Christian the movie-maker (I can't remember his name) was. There are Christians who believe that the virgin birth and the resurrection happened in a literal sense. There are those who don't. The former is a very unscientific view. The latter is not explicitly so. Mind you, this doesn't discredit the movie in its entirety. All it does is demonstrate that the movie-maker, at least when it comes to the virgin birth and the resurrection, and, we can extrapolate, to all of Christianity, does not particularly care for science.

And as for Dawkins' arguments... 1-5 establish a logical progression. They are statements that are important to the argument, and although they do not form the argument proper, they are necessary and cannot be discarded as rubbish or pointless. 6 establishes that the Designer (God) hypothesis doesn't solve anything, and 7 establishes that there is no need for a Designer in the first place, meaning, altogether, that not only is the Designer postulation useless, but it is also unnecessary in the first place.

Other Comments by Andrew Stich

41. Comment #200545 by TeraBrat on June 27, 2008 at 9:00 pm

I'll tell them it hurts my feelings to be banned. I'm sure they will give in.

Other Comments by TeraBrat

42. Comment #200548 by Double Bass Atheist on June 27, 2008 at 9:18 pm

Comment #200501 by Pattern Seeker

Looks like someone went kookoo for 'Koukl Puffs'...

Humor is certainly the best approach to dealing with fools this.

Other Comments by Double Bass Atheist

43. Comment #200549 by AmericanGodless on June 27, 2008 at 9:19 pm

I must disagree with those who have commented that Mr. Koukl made a good argument about ridicule not being relevant. If he would have explained that an ad hominem argument is irrelevant, that would have been good. But he did not do that. Instead, he showed Hitchins promising that he would not accuse Dinesh D'Souza of being hypocritical, like so many others he has debated, who don't actually believe what they are trying to make others believe. Then he quoted Hitch as arguing that most believers will have ulterior motives for holding and spreading their religious belief (like the culture into which they have been born), even if they don't truly believe it themselves. But hypocrisy and compromised motivation in the witnesses are irrelevant, Koukl says, to the question of whether God exists. But why is that? It is because God, to this man, is not a hypothesis, but is a presumed truth.

The sincerity and trustworthiness of those who would try to convince us of God's existence is indeed relevant to those of us for whom God is, at best, a hypothesis. When scientists admit to disbelieving their own publications, and to having reasons other than evidence to promote a hypothesis, we are justified in having less confidence in their findings. When the subject is the existence of God, however, from a believer's point of view, the qualifications of witnesses is irrelevant, since belief for them is not a hypothesis, but is the default position, to be assumed true until proved to be absolutely false. But evidence cannot ever do that, and so science and its inductive methods are irrelevant, as are the qualifications and reputation for honesty of those whom we might expect to bring any such evidence to our attention.

No true believer will ever be impressed with an argument that ends with "therefor, God almost certainly does not exist."

Other Comments by AmericanGodless

44. Comment #200561 by ACJames on June 27, 2008 at 10:20 pm

What is interesting is he's not showing them how to think critically, but merely what words to use in response. More Parroting..

Also, the age of the crowd. All of them aging boomers....

The tide shall turn eventually.

Other Comments by ACJames

45. Comment #200562 by dansam on June 27, 2008 at 10:32 pm

Not only is this lecture INTENSELY boring, it's also devoid of any rational argument.

It's just painful to watch.

Other Comments by dansam

46. Comment #200563 by black wolf on June 27, 2008 at 10:32 pm

Oh boy, he's gonna explain critical thinking. Ok, jokes, sarcasm and ad hominems aren't reasonable arguments, I agree. And here's the first mistake, as I expected right in his first argument: Christopher Hitchens knows very well that sarcasm is not an argument, and he never pretends it is. Thanks for the strawman, Greg. You've demonstrated the first fallacy without telling your audience it is one. That's called lying. On to part 2.
Apparently Greg tries to set up his audience to believe atheists have only fallacies or divertive arguments to offer. Oh, will they be caught on the wrong foot when attempting to debate an atheist older than 12. Hitchens presents an argument in this sample clip - and Greg obviously cuts it off right in the middle. No, we don't want this defenseless audience exposed to a real argument, would we Greg? And then Greg completely misses the point. Yes Greg, if your culture and psychology explains why you believe in God, and various sciences explain how the idea of God and religion developed, it doesn't tell us anything about God. Why does that amaze you? As the sciences you just chose to ignore well explained that your God is a man-made idea, there is absolutely no point in learning more about that God. He's in your mind, and we know a lot about why he's there and not real. It's not a fallacy, it's a reasonable, logical and plausible explanation, i.e. a real argument. It's not the atheist's fault that you can't understand this, and it's not a fallacy. On to part 3.
Oooh, be careful there Greg, you really don't want to tell your flock a good argument against the existence of God. I don't know who your audience is here, but do you really have to take minute after minute explaining what an argument is? Then again, looking at the visitors we sometimes get here on this site, you probably do. While you're at it, you might want to exlain what a sentence is and why spelling is important for your credibility in a written discussion. But I digress, and this wasn't an argument. Here comes the argument, can't wait. Hitchens interrupted your friend? Too bad. You just spent almost four minutes saying absolutely nothing. But you're getting paid for this, right? On to the last part.
Oh Greg, you're lying again. Assuming that science can tell us something about reality is not circular reasoning. You better leave your glasses on the lectern when you leave and wait for a miracle to improve your eyesight. Or do you want to lose your credibility by relying on science like that? The circular argument is assuming that God exists and therefore the resurrection is evidence for God's existence, which is the fallacy Hitchens pointed out, and which you didn't tell your audience about. Way to deceive. Go ahead. You pick TGD now, this will be interesting. Ah, there it is. You simply chose to omit part 4 of Dawkins' argument completely, implying to your audience that the parts you skipped over were meaningless. It states: "The most ingenious and powerful crane so far discovered is Darwinian evolution by natural selection. Darwin and his successors have shown how living creatures, with their spectacular statistical improbability and appearance of design, have evolved by slow, gradual degrees from simple beginnings. We can now safely say that the illusion of design in living creatures is just that - an illusion."
This little video series ends here, but I think I've seen enough. Lying by omission is still lying, Greg. And exploiting an audience which apparently needs to be educated about the basics of critical thinking - chanting "NOOO" in unison on your cue as if they were kindergarten kids - by deceiving them in such a way by not actually presenting a single fallacy like you promised, is despicable.
Come visit this site and discuss some issues if you think you're so versed in spotting and avoiding fallacies. You'll not find a gullible, ignorant audience here, I promise.

Other Comments by black wolf

47. Comment #200565 by Godfree Gordon on June 27, 2008 at 10:43 pm

WARNING: Just finished all 4 of these and I'm sorry to say that's 20 minutes of my short life I wont be getting back.

Other Comments by Godfree Gordon

48. Comment #200566 by black wolf on June 27, 2008 at 10:49 pm

"Regard […] to occasions, control and restraint of our actual raillery, and economy in bon-mots, will distinguish an orator from a buffoon, as also will the fact that we people speak with good reason, not just to be thought funny, but to gain some benefit, while those others are jesting from morning to night, and without any reason at all." (De oratore: II, lx. 247) - Cicero, 55 BCE
"You may perplex reason by subtlety, or overrule it by imagination. [---] Reason is disturbed by sophism, by imagination and by passion." (1927, 28) - W. G. Hamilton, 1808

I've taken these quotes from:
"Problematics of Using Rhetorical Irony in Parliamentary Politics" by Taru Haapala, available at http://www.ruc.dk/komm/Ansatte/vip/kimsc/papers/Paper_TaruHaapala.doc/

To which I would add: Sophism is disturbed by sarcasm, reason and facts.

Other Comments by black wolf

49. Comment #200573 by quik on June 27, 2008 at 11:16 pm

Ridiculing worked on me. When Dawkins drew the parallel between god and the FSM, it made me wince at first but very quickly made me an atheist.

Other Comments by quik

50. Comment #200576 by black wolf on June 27, 2008 at 11:31 pm

quik,
really? Wow. I'm interested, when you were a believer, how would you have responded to the standard theist counter "That's just silly, the FSM doesn't offer any hope of salvation or an afterlife, and it's also just made up, unlike our religion which is divinely revealed and inspired". And how do you respond to that now?
Have you posted on this site's 'Convert's Corner'?

Other Comments by black wolf