JBP openly stated that he would have loved to debate Hitchens, he thinks he was very wrong in some of his positions on Christianity.

I would have liked to see it

sadly that won't be possible

Maybe we can get interviewers to ask him to elaborate on his disagreement with Hitchens.

I suppose. There's enough material of Hitchen's out there

Would be interesting to hear Jordan's thoughts on whatever issues he had with Hitchen's views

Maybe some non-pleb can get a superchat in during the Rubin Report.

I saw Harris is having another talk with him at some point? I'd like one where it doesn't devolve into some weird debate about the definition of truth

but the live settings are kind of... meh...

a lot of pandering to the audience, it feels like. Which is fine, but doesn't really work for someone who isn't there, I feel

There's been an interesting Sam Harris vs Ben Shapiro recently.

yeah, I watched it, it was a good talk

despite being live

in front of an audience, I mean

Can't even get remotely close to a JBP v Hitchens debate since his brother seems to think of JBP as a new age cult leader

Sam has the opinion that western moral values have nothing to do with Judeo-Christian tradition.

Christopher Hitchens didn't agree much with his brother at all, though

I think he thought of him as a bit of a stuck up buffoon, to be honest

I think you mean Steven Weinberg with that quote

For good people to do evil - that takes religion

Hitchens quoted that, so I'll assume he shares the same opinion.

Gulag Archipelago is enough of a refutation of that.

Then, going back to my claim of intellectual deficiency, Hitchens calls every bad ideology "religion."

That's a fucking strawman of an argument.

He wasn't interested into finding out whether religion was good or bad, true or false. He *defined* religion to be bad and false.

To the point of calling communism a religion to stack up with Christianity, point at it and say "see, religion caused all those deaths too."

only look at the Athesist movements and how they fight amongst themselves like cats

they agree and will not sit next to eachother

That's why you part Kittens out

or drown them in a bag

DanielKO that said there is common ground between religions and most terribad ideologies

Once you reject what evidence shows and go off the deep end?

anything goes as a conclusion

Reminds me of neo-Marxists redefining words.

Feminists like to say "toxic masculinity". Try asking them what masculinity isn't toxic? All of it is toxic. Masculinity itself is defined to be toxic.

>"Racism" isn't just prejudice based on race. It's prejudice + power. So black people can't be racist because they don't have power.

I'm sorry, but if you're going to call all evil ideologies "religion" just to reinforce your argument that religions are evil, you're climbing up some circular logic. You might think you got the high moral ground, but everyone else is looking down on you.

So, with that definition, if a religion is objectively good, and not evil, it can't be called religion.

That was Hitchens playing the postmodernist game of twisting words, to shuffle things around into categories until they fall into the ones that he's attacking, thus "proving" his point.

Was there video, or just audio?

I was referring to the Ben - Harris thing, but discord had cut off the last four or five messages