Full Version: Hitchens and Boteach Debate on God
BackFull version of the Christopher Hitchens and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach Debate at New York's 92nd Street Y.
Every program and presentation at the 92nd Street Y is made possible by charitable donations from individuals like you. To continue our activities in all media, we hope you consider making a donation below. Thank you.
Channel: Nonprofits & Activism
Uploaded: February 8, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Author: 92ndStreetY
Length: 01:33:56
Rating: 4.87
Views: 222540
Tags: hitchens shmuley boteach god atheism judaism 92ndStreetY 92Y religion culture authors history
Video Comments:
olafsirpab (December 5, 2008 at 12:28 am)
amen marchog
marchog (December 5, 2008 at 12:15 am)
Boteach appears unaware that he is wearing glasses. He might want to ask why god gave him imperfect eyes - perhaps talking shit is a sin.
hazydavey (December 5, 2008 at 12:09 am)
Also, Rabbi Boteach says that Stephen Jay Gould did not believe in evolution - that is complete nonsense.
hazydavey (December 4, 2008 at 11:40 pm)
This poor Rabbi has passion but is out of his league.
He has no understanding of evolution, as is clear by his flimsy rhetorical attempts to compare Darwin to Hitler. Let's follow his logic. Hitler also believed in physics and built murderous weapons applying principles of physics. We must therefore reject the immoral science of physics and dismiss Isaac Newton.
Rather than engage Hitchens, his "argument" boils down to an emotional appeal that his way is more hopeful and joyous.
He has no understanding of evolution, as is clear by his flimsy rhetorical attempts to compare Darwin to Hitler. Let's follow his logic. Hitler also believed in physics and built murderous weapons applying principles of physics. We must therefore reject the immoral science of physics and dismiss Isaac Newton.
Rather than engage Hitchens, his "argument" boils down to an emotional appeal that his way is more hopeful and joyous.
Cellularwakeup (December 4, 2008 at 10:48 pm)
The only argument that the good Rabbi can make is an emotional one which is also devoid of logic. He argues against what may be the underlying motives of atheists without making his own case for the existence of God. It is a very weak case to demonize the atheist as one who is weak in his morality as the only way to defend the existence of a supreme being. Finally, he falls back on an easily overcome old and weak design argument.
faraz1729 (December 4, 2008 at 10:33 pm)
trac taking olaf for a spin. I actually kinda like trac now. He has a pretty simple strategy, but it still works on everyone every time.
olafsirpab (December 4, 2008 at 7:39 pm)
And are you so blind as to assume that the same text that says that world is flat and stars go around the earth and the ocean has gates that lower and raise the sea-levels can be trusted?
And why on Earth would you choose that line? I have a hypothesis (not a theory, as theories are powerful tools of explanation)
You want to be a slave. You want to waste this life in endless supplication to an invisible father figure who you can never be good enough for. You have the base desire to submit.
And why on Earth would you choose that line? I have a hypothesis (not a theory, as theories are powerful tools of explanation)
You want to be a slave. You want to waste this life in endless supplication to an invisible father figure who you can never be good enough for. You have the base desire to submit.
olafsirpab (December 4, 2008 at 7:36 pm)
I guess you didn't read... anything that I wrote... or have never taken a proper biology class... or maybe just didn't learn anything in that class. Your comparisons are nonsensical and idiotic at best, and at worst are an indicator of an appalling lack of reason that I am ashamed to say belongs to a fellow homo sapien.
But if you had learned anything, you would know that cells are far from the simplest of living things, and you betray that you don't understand what a eukaryote is.
But if you had learned anything, you would know that cells are far from the simplest of living things, and you betray that you don't understand what a eukaryote is.
trac4yt (December 4, 2008 at 7:25 pm)
olaf,
CH brings nothing new to the table.
He thinks science backs him.
It doesn't.
The Biblical infallible FACTS remain..
"Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created." (Re 4:11)
:-)
CH brings nothing new to the table.
He thinks science backs him.
It doesn't.
The Biblical infallible FACTS remain..
"Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created." (Re 4:11)
:-)
trac4yt (December 4, 2008 at 7:22 pm)
olaf,
BECAUSE of God, living whale cells function.
"And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good." (Ge 1:21)
:-)
The complexity of living cells resides NOT in the biochemistry alone. That is wonder enough. Rather, in the spiritual base.
Thus scientists cannot create the SIMPLEST of living things.
:-)
BECAUSE of God, living whale cells function.
"And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good." (Ge 1:21)
:-)
The complexity of living cells resides NOT in the biochemistry alone. That is wonder enough. Rather, in the spiritual base.
Thus scientists cannot create the SIMPLEST of living things.
:-)
- Soundbiters | Comment on Political Video
-
Tags:
Politics Joe Biden Hillary Clinton Chris Dodd John Edwards Mike Gravel Dennis Kucinich Barack Obama Bill Richardson Sam Brownback Rudy Giuliani Mike Huckabee Duncan Hunter John McCain Ron Paul Mitt Romney Tom Tancredo Tommy Thompson Fred Thompson Rush Limbaugh Mark Levin Laura Ingraham Sean Hannity Monica Crowley Bob Grant Bill O'Reilly Michael Medved Glenn Beck G. Gordon Liddy Matt Drudge Bill Bennett Neal Boortz Alan Colmes Al Sharpton Randi Rhodes Hugh Hewitt Al Franken Republican Democrat Libertarian George Bush Political Scandal
-