Stephen Fry's moving speech.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-12-2011, 02:47 PM
RE: Stephen Fry's moving speech.
Yes, very good debate. There was a clear winner, and it was clear why - Stephen Fry not only made several unanswered challenges, but Hitchens also threw out that last challenge for his opponents to remark on whether they frowned on Stephen's sexual orientation, and the final speaker started his speech by stating that he would not answer it. Archbishop Onaiyekan presented a very weak case, and sadly Hitchens didn't present much for evidence, as he merely tried to stir up the crowd (although he did that rather effectively). Ann Widdencombe threw out a great first volley and Stephen Fry answered it completely with return fire that I've mentioned already went unanswered. The question-answer section was nearly worthless as it was rushed so quickly, and the closing comments were brutal to Ann and John.

If you haven't seen it, it was an overwhelming and decisive victory for Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry (spoiler alert! did I say that too late?) and worth watching.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Starcrash's post
15-12-2011, 03:24 PM
RE: Stephen Fry's moving speech.
(15-12-2011 01:21 PM)Leela Wrote:  Wonderful! Especially the outcome after the second vote, just great!
Did Mrs Ann and the Bishop not prepare themselves properly? What they hat as arguments was just babbling, they made no real points.

Yes they babbled on and on presenting no real statistical facts, historical evidence or studies.
basically all i heard from Widdecombe and the bishop was "The catholic church is a force of good" over and over again and as we all clearly know; repeating something over and over again does not make it so.

(15-12-2011 02:47 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  Yes, very good debate. There was a clear winner, and it was clear why - Stephen Fry not only made several unanswered challenges, but Hitchens also threw out that last challenge for his opponents to remark on whether they frowned on Stephen's sexual orientation, and the final speaker started his speech by stating that he would not answer it. Archbishop Onaiyekan presented a very weak case, and sadly Hitchens didn't present much for evidence, as he merely tried to stir up the crowd (although he did that rather effectively). Ann Widdencombe threw out a great first volley and Stephen Fry answered it completely with return fire that I've mentioned already went unanswered. The question-answer section was nearly worthless as it was rushed so quickly, and the closing comments were brutal to Ann and John.

If you haven't seen it, it was an overwhelming and decisive victory for Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry (spoiler alert! did I say that too late?) and worth watching.

You have quite the aptitude for critique, i admire that. Although i disagree on you're point that Hitchens didnt present much for evidence, most of the evidence he presented was historical evidence in the past wrong doings of the church and presented it in a form of him demanding an apology for said wrong doings. I also liked the way Fry retorted with the burgler comment against Widdecombe's whine about them bringing up the issue of condoms and child abuse.

"Yeah, good idea. Make them buy your invisible apple. Insist that they do. Market it properly and don't stop until they pay for it." -Malleus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Jackrabbit's post
15-12-2011, 05:43 PM
RE: Stephen Fry's moving speech.
That was a good debate. It was hard for me to listen to Ann Widdencombe without getting angry. But I was amused at the whining about "all the usual arguments", as if they had somehow been previously reasonably answered. Maybe in they're mind they have answered them... but clearly not in an acceptable manner if they keep reappearing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like kineo's post
15-12-2011, 08:25 PM
RE: Stephen Fry's moving speech.
Just watched the whole thing. It was good, but the most surprising part were the numbers. I didn't think they'd change that much because people tend to excuse facts if they object their beliefs. Evolutionary speaking, our brains are set to notice patterns and focus on them, so once a person has an idea or thought on how things are supposed to be in their opinion, they 'look' for the pattern to back it up. Skeptics or 'thinkers' retrain their brain to question and look at the hard evidence and are constantly recalculating as opposed to reestablishing their thoughts.

Thanks for sharing!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes LadyJane's post
16-12-2011, 06:27 AM
RE: Stephen Fry's moving speech.
Spoiler alert? Hitchens and Fry against a couple of theists? You must be joking.

The way to see by Faith, is to shut the eye of Reason. - Ben Franklin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2011, 06:30 AM
RE: Stephen Fry's moving speech.
(16-12-2011 06:27 AM)hotrodmike Wrote:  Spoiler alert? Hitchens and Fry against a couple of theists? You must be joking.

Yes, it wasn't at all fair; it was a battle of wits with unarmed opponents.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
16-12-2011, 07:58 AM
RE: Stephen Fry's moving speech.
(16-12-2011 06:30 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(16-12-2011 06:27 AM)hotrodmike Wrote:  Spoiler alert? Hitchens and Fry against a couple of theists? You must be joking.

Yes, it wasn't at all fair; it was a battle of wits with unarmed opponents.

Yup, obnoxious lady + deep-voiced pleader with a weak special-pleading case

VS

talented charismatic rationalists with solid arguments.

Not really a contest. It would be interesting to see how many of the voters were Catholics who voted against Catholicism in the end. The outcome was certainly quite surprising. The first vote was to be expected. The second one, not so much

Oh, no Hallucinations 4:11 says the 'gilded sheep should be stewed in rat blood' but Morons 5:16 contradicts it. (Chas)

I would never shake a baby unless the recipe requires it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2011, 09:07 AM
RE: Stephen Fry's moving speech.
(15-12-2011 04:58 AM)Jackrabbit Wrote:  Recently i've found on youtube, the "Intelligence Squared" debate,
in which Stephen Fry, Christopher Hitchens, Archbishop John Onaiyekan and Ann Widdencombe debate wether the catholic church, as one of the largest organisations ever, is a force for good in the world.

I found the Arguments put forth by Hitchens and Fry to be absolutely outstanding, and i was personally moved by Fry's excellent speech.

I highly recommend watching this debate as it offers great facts on some
of the horror that the catholic church, the christian religion and all the other abrahamic faiths have inflicted upon the world in the name of God.

Full debate:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4


Part 5

I just felt like i needed to share this.

Wow pwned! They even lost supporters.... Amazing. My favorite slap:
The church says: "Well we couldn't know better because nobody else did... THEN WHAT ARE YOU FOR?"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes davidbehrns's post
16-12-2011, 12:36 PM
RE: Stephen Fry's moving speech.
(16-12-2011 06:30 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(16-12-2011 06:27 AM)hotrodmike Wrote:  Spoiler alert? Hitchens and Fry against a couple of theists? You must be joking.

Yes, it wasn't at all fair; it was a battle of wits with unarmed opponents.

Sadly, I agree. Defending whether God exists? At least thanks to Kalum and Platinga, a theist can make a rational argument. Even trying to defend whether Protestant Christianity is a force for good isn't too hard. But defending the Catholic Church?

To take this position - that the Catholic Church is a force for good - you have to deny the church's well-documented and indisputable mistakes, which they didn't attempt (to their credit), spin their past mistakes as good or not-so-bad, which is easier but also unattempted, or simply say that the good outweighs the bad. This was probably the best option and it's the one they went for, but your average person - when presented with both sides - is not likely to excuse the church's past in favor of its present, especially when that present still includes child rape. Even their case that they donate lots of money to charities is post hoc, as that's a symptom of wealth rather than good (it's a tendency of wealthy people to give to charities).

I think I can debate well, but I just wouldn't dare to take this side. It's a losing proposition from the start.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2011, 02:07 PM
RE: Stephen Fry's moving speech.
(16-12-2011 12:36 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  ... At least thanks to Kalum and Platinga, a theist can make a rational argument.

If you mean the Kalam argument, it is easily shown as logically incoherent, based on an unproven premise, followed by an invalid syllogism.

So, yes, you can have a rational argument, but it will lead to refutation of the fatally flawed Kalam argument.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: