Tuesday, July 03, 2007

Hitchens vs. Sharpton on Hardball

Hitchens for the win.


Adrian said...

Gravity exists, therefore God exists? What a dumbass. I can't believe that he thinks that's a good argument, and I can't believe he doesn't get laughed off.

Then that bizarre attack on WMDs. While I think Hitchens is wrong on that point, it has nothing whatsoever to do with God.

When will people wake up and see these non sequiturs for what they are?

Anonymous said...

Sharpton was never accused of being the brightest in the world. Yes Hitchens made a great point about the WMD's. It's real simple to understand. When U.N inspectors were in Iraq they verified that Iraq had WMD's and was producing WMD's. That was shortly after the first Gulf War. Therefore that serves as evidence of the existence of WMD's in Iraq. Just because we have not found them doesn't mean they were destroyed. We don't have evidence to show where they are located or if they were destroyed. Only time will tell.

My point is Sharpton is just another irrational believer. Sharpton's mind is locked in a primative way of thinking. That's my conclusion.


IsThatLatin said...

Sharpton speaks well to stupid people. Whatchagonnado?

As for Hitchens, it was easier to watch him a few days later with Tim Russert---he was actually allowed to speak.

wade419 said...

hm. I'm not sure either of them were really allowed to speak outside of their first statements. It's like they were stumbling over each other to make a point without any regard for the other...wait, who won again?

Aaron Kinney said...


Good question. But I think that people are starting to wake up nowadays. Thank God!!! ;)


Im blogrolling you!


IMO I think Hitchens won, but perhaps I am biased cause of my atheism. I will certainly agree with you that they were both stumbling over each-other and being rude about it and it was annoying. I think both of them are rude and aggressive debaters, but I do respect Hitchens intellect and perspective.

I actually just finished reading Hitchens latest book, god is not Great. It is a rather entertaining read, and he certainly has a way with words. He approaches the issue from a literary perspective rather than a science-ish Dawkins one. You might want to check it out yourself, even though you disagree with him, it will surely keep you turning the pages.

Aaron Kinney said...

Forgot to add that, while I find many things about Sharpton to be disagreeable, I think that he is doing what he thinks is right, so his desire to make the world a better place, as he sees it, is admirable.

I also respect Sharpton's passion for, and bravery in standing up for, his worldview. In the video, he concedes (albeit somewhat derisively) that Hitchens is an intellectual and and impressive speaker. He also concedes that Hitchens has great criticisms about the various instantiations of religion that we have seen over the years.

Its almost as if, when debating Hitchens, Sharpton quickly shifts to a defense of a generic theism or even a partial-agnosticism rather than defend his particular Christian dogma. This is yet another concession or admission to Hitchens on Sharptons part.

Frank Walton said...

Hey Aaron, you crazy nut, I'm not impersonating you, really! And I'm Frank Walton, the ultmate impersonation. I'm surprised you guys don't get it yet.
Check this one out.

Frank Walton Comes Clean

But really, I'm not impersonating you.

Aaron Kinney said...


Surprised I dont get it yet!??! Sorry if I cant keep up with all this impersonaer-impersonations here.

Look, in this blogger world, the only identifying factors for people are their avatars and profile names and URLs. I cant confrim face to face who the fuck you are, and having two Waltons - one who insists you are a faker - and you who insists you are real, is confusing.

What if a bunch of Aaron Kinneys were running around pulling these kinds of stunts? Who the fuck would know who the real Kinney was?

I still think you are a faker. Ive seen Walton's post exposing you and showing your IPs and such. Youre crazy.

I blog about atheism, and I like to debate with Christians about these topics seriously. I dont want to waste my time weeding out impersonators. This is a serious issue for me (as well as for Christians) and we would rather interact with real opponents rather than play games with fakers.

Aaron Kinney said...


Atheists dont "decide" morality anymore than they "decide" that gravity exists. Instead, it is merely discovered.

Morality isnt something that can be dictated by a conscious agent, even a God. Euthyphro's Dilemma proved this. Morality is a logical consequence of nature, not something to be declared by a whim.

angelsdepart said...

God Dammit, I have Fake Walton posting on my page too

Hitchens is so dead on, how can we get people to listen?

Anonymous said...

Folks. I am an atheist but I have to say, Hitchens did not win this debate.

I'm not saying Sharpton was convincing, but Hitchens systematically failed to address any of the points Sharpton brought up.

Sharpton had two simple arguments.

1. God is the grand designer, the first cause, the un caused cause etc.

2. Without god, then there is no morality.

Both of these points have very powerful counter points, and these are based in evolutionary biology, chemistry and thermodynamics.

Hitchens was just a one trick pony and all he did was argue against religious dogma, even when Sharpton accepted his points. Hitchens was just engaging in verbal masturbation. He loves himself and the sound of his own voice.

Aaron Kinney said...

Re: Anonymous,

I understand what you are saying, but I disagree with you for the most part.

Granted, Hitchens didnt do much to address Sharpton's "generic god" propositions, but at the same time, Sharpton didnt do much to support the generic god in the first place.

Dont forget where the burden of proof lies, my friend.

And of course, remember that the source Sharpton would use to support HIS god (he is a Christian after all) is the Bible, and that old dusty book is quite handily shredded by Hitchens.