Christopher Hitchens vs Alister McGrath (1/11)

[Tj930]

I'm always confused when the word "Truth" is associated with some meaning other than James Bool's "True" or "False". (Seems that religious types always try to imbue the word with some other fantastic and yet nebulous meaning.. Like bad poetry!)

[grisgrisy]

some really good stuff here

[LittleOttys]

@dirtydonki Cheers pal

[jjclassjj]

interesting video and very informative

[sillygames]

@Adcroy Are you disputing my comment or agreeing with it?

[Nerd0042]

This is my favorite Hitch debate. And I think I've seen all of them.

[KatanaRapierCombo2]

@Nerd0042 Alister McGrath is the true victor in this debate though. Christopher Hitchens was merely coming up with excuses to try and answer Alister McGrath, meanwhile Alister McGrath gave honest and just answers to Christopher Hitchens' problems.

[SlowrThanThe2ndComin]

Debate starts at 6:07

[Kmessenger1974]

@SlowrThanThe2ndComin Hitchens was destroyed by William Lane Craig.

[rfranklinw1]

@Kmessenger1974 You are insane and couldn't be more wrong. I saw that debate and the only reason anyone would think Craig wasn't destroyed is that they are a deluded religious fool.

[Kmessenger1974]

@rfranklinw1 LOL It was funny watching Hitches squirm and try to avoid WLC questions, he was fumbling around pretending his mic was malfunctioning. "deluded religious fool" That is some top notch original material there, sigh..

[adraim69]

starts at 5:56

[Forgarr]

debate starts at 6:15

[sillygames]

@timjdong It doesn't take much to find out he's a lot more than that. What's embarrassing is how disingenuous my fellow humans will be, such as yourself about three weeks ago when you wrote "...we're following the editor of a FASHION MAGAZINE."

Vanity Fair is a magazine on "pop culture, fashion, and politics" according to tired old Wikipedia, and "From world affairs to entertainment, business to fashion, crime to society" according to the magazine.

And it's only one thing on Hitchens' resume.

[goulter1985]

@timjdong uh huh...almost as ridiculous of following a mythical carpenter.....

[phildirt3]

religion does not belong in universities

[crackthecorn]

@phildirt3 as a form of academia to see the fault and history of people maybe ..as a form and guide to life and belief ..no

[BritonAgainstIslam]

@phildirt3

Yes it does, how else could one reach a complex and justified opinion?!

[AidanMorrell]

It's ironic that he tries to discredit religion on the fact that there was such a lack of scientific evidence, and that humans didn't even know there were "micro organisms" ..... If you want to play that game, then isn't Evolution just as fallible? Considering Darwin didn't even know about DNA or Genetics when he procured his theory....

[markviman]

@AidanMorrell No. Darwin had excellent arguments and evidence for his theory. Granted, he didn't have nearly as much as we do today, but he was not speculating. If you read Origin of the Species, he clearly lays it all out. He didn't know the mechanism, but Mendelian genetics had been around since... well... Mendel :)

[jgwares]

No scientist ever claimed to have perfect knowledge of the world where as Religion claims to have the word of an omnipontent creator.

[iblessedx]

@jgwares I think you mean omniscient

[MeBeMat]

@AidanMorrell Yes, evolution is fallible and nobody is claiming otherwise. It's falsifiable which is what gives it it's credibility. The evolutionary model isn't dependent entirely on what Darwin said, thought and knew: he proposed the original idea based on the information available to him; any evidence that has come to light since, such as DNA, has been tested against and added to the evolutionary model because it was consistent. If it was otherwise, evolution would've been thrown out.

[wowamonn]

@AidanMorrell That is the beauty of Evolution by Natural Selection so many things can falsify the Theory but nothing has ever come close to doing it. That is why the idea when it was first purposed to the public by Darwin 150 years has stood the test and is still being proven by the natural sciences.

[ErinTunes]

@AidanMorrell Yes, but there is now more sophisticated evidence to continue to support his theory. Whereas with religion, there still seems to be not a shred of real evidence in it's support.

[KatanaRapierCombo2]

@ErinTunes That's because atheists aren't looking at it correctly. There is this series on youtube called Spirit Science, you should watch and learn. Take for example the book of Genesis, perhaps the truth isn't to be taken about literally of the scriptures, but symbolically. Adam could represent the ancient and former, whereas Eve could represent the modern and futuristic. Eve ate from the apple, and realized it was a mistake. That sounds a lot like what's happened to the world, to me.

[Raptorjesusface]

@KatanaRapierCombo2 Yeah, maybe Adam represents the fantastic slavery, genocide, religious warfare, genital mutilation and indoctrination, whereas Eve represents the terrible secularism, science, medicine, freedom of speech and equality. Clearly a mistake.

[KatanaRapierCombo2]

@Raptorjesusface i think not. you're obviously not an artist or a scribe so you wouldn't understand, or would misunderstand. please take into account the environments, culture/tradition, and race of people these actions were performed by, because i assure you they're important factors. more likely it's basically like the (true Church compared to Nazism) kind of concept. both were faithful and were perhaps of the same faith, but in very different ways. don't take credit for everything good, fool!

[Raptorjesusface]

@KatanaRapierCombo2 But it's advocated in the bible. How do we know what to take literally, and what to not take literally? We don't. We apply our own values to it, and pick the ones that fit the best. I don't want slavery, or genocide, or genital mutilation, but the bible advocates all these things, what is the word of god and what is not?

And since you so kindly insulted me twice in your post, allow me to say that your beliefs are pathetic, and your arrogance is disappointingly obvious.

[KatanaRapierCombo2]

@Raptorjesusface you're mistaken, the modern and the ancient are no longer the same in every way. you have to understand that those are in the Old Testament, I believe in the New Testament. I believe in Jesus, not in Moses, except perhaps the ten commandments...

if you studied the ancient Sumerians you'd realize that their religion could have been the foundation of Judaism, but this religion has been improving. now it's Christianity; a faith I find gradually getting closer to finding Divinity.

[KatanaRapierCombo2]

@KatanaRapierCombo2 and besides, I called you a fool, because I was thinking that you were trying to take credit for almost everything humanely appealing for the sake of atheists. understand that Christianity provides those as well, in fact, had it not been for the life of Jesus and his disciples or followers, such positive things may not or even could not have been erected to be considered and trusted today!

[Raptorjesusface]

@KatanaRapierCombo2 I was trying to tell you that it should be credited to humanism. Not always the secular kind, but still, it's not derived from the bible. Because if it was derived from the bible, there would be more of 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

These aren't moral teachings.

[MrUrosSrb]

@Raptorjesusface and Jesus doesnt say that we shouldnt love others..HE says that we should love him most because he brings eternal life.WE are also to obey parents and love your neighbor as your self.

[Raptorjesusface]

@MrUrosSrb Should we obey our parents if they tell us to die?

It also says in the bible that we should love our enemy, which we shouldn't. As Hitchens puts it, I hate my enemy and wish for his destruction.

[MrUrosSrb]

@Raptorjesusface Well,first of all,Levitical law existed before Jesus came in flesh...

[MrUrosSrb]

@MrUrosSrb The Law was a foreshadow for the Coming of Christ,the intend of law is to show humans that they cannot achieve perfection through their own works,but rather through faith in Jesus.I know you are an atheist but i really want to tell u that Believing in Jesus CHrist can only do u good.To be saved u just have to believe in Jesus Christ as Lord.Its that simple.

[Raptorjesusface]

@MrUrosSrb Whatever the intention of the law was, it certainly led to immoral things and actions. And if what you say had been true, then god must have been a mindless idiot if he would let mass murderers into heaven just because they believe, and not anyone who gives their life to save others, but doesn't pick the right religion.

[MrUrosSrb]

@Raptorjesusface God does encourage God works,they come as a product of faith.God loves when somebody does good deeds,but there is still sin that isnt payed for and Jesus payed it for you,me and whole world.We just have to place faith in him and we will be saved.Works are for rewards and built upon the foundation of Jesus Christ.Trust me the wistest decision u can make is to trust him.

[KatanaRapierCombo2]

@Raptorjesusface I read the chapter, not just those verses in particular, so i won't hold my breath, sorry.

if you think about it were the ancients as moral as we are today? in Sparta, mothers had to obey their sons!

here's how i interpreted this/these: those who have immoral families and/or traditions are to be changed for the better. perhaps arrogant by-standers thought of him as just a usual preacher teaching the same old thing, but he was telling them that he means business. am I wrong?

[Raptorjesusface]

@KatanaRapierCombo2 That doesn't explain why children should be killed. Or why women should be worth less than men. Or why slavery is fine in the first place.

Now the key thing here is "how i interpreted". How do you know that your interpretation is the correct one? What if god really wanted us to keep slaves, would that be perfectly okay?

[KatanaRapierCombo2]

@Raptorjesusface where have you found (in the Bible) Jesus doing such things? if this was in the old testament, a proper Jew or Judeo-Christian would perhaps be the more qualified person to answer you on that.

Catholicism doesn't believe in such things as those either.

i don't know for certain that my interpretations are the correct ones, but i was just replying to your post about those verses; 10:34-37. radical islam seems worse to me, which is why i would be uncomfortable of being a Muslim

[Raptorjesusface]

@KatanaRapierCombo2 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

How can you not believe in the old testament if it's said by jesus in the new testament that it still counts? Other than that, even if you don't agree with the moral teachings or believe they were told by god, unless you believe that the old testament thing never happened, you have to accept that god performed such cruelty as I referred to in the posts to MrUrosSrb.

[KatanaRapierCombo2]

@Raptorjesusface but there's a reason why that's what came to their minds and that they wanted him crucified.

Jesus also honoured John the Baptist and perhaps even praised him, i don't suppose you know what John the Baptizer was doing, do you not?

and because you asked, how i can think so is by; knowing about the Sumerians, the way Jesus spoke as being so mysteriously brilliantly poetically divine, and that the law perhaps had purpose, perhaps what Jesus meant by fulfill is conclude

[Raptorjesusface]

@KatanaRapierCombo2 I'm sorry, but I don't catch the drift, care to rephrase that sentence?

[KatanaRapierCombo2]

@Raptorjesusface I don't think Jesus was "simple-minded", the way we use the term

it's almost as if his wisdom was at a different dimension than ours, a higher dimension

John the Baptist baptized his followers, and spoke of atonement and repentance, the Jewish don't practice baptism, because they believe that the laws are right and should be obeyed, therefore they believe they have not truly sinned in following the Old Testament of the Bible, unless I'm mistaken

[KatanaRapierCombo2]

@Raptorjesusface if we were to interpret the words and actions of God described in the Old Testament, they may actually resemble the dieties of the Sumerians called the Annunaki, it's fairly complex, so you'd have to study more about them, and perhaps compare Judaism to the Sumerian religion for further notice

to sum it up, I believe that there is a Divine God, one who is truly perfect, that we humans with our religion were in search of, were way off, yet are evolving to become more precise

[KatanaRapierCombo2]

@Raptorjesusface Jesus was and is the pinnacle of good and right

perhaps "the kingdom of heaven" (as Einstein interpreted) is a collection of the intellectually and personally valuable, people who are immune and are cures to this race's foolishness

atheists may be oblivious to it or don't care, but religion is gradually advancing, and theoretically evolving, like it or not, we're on to something big

picture this; Mesopotamian mythology, to Judaism, to Mandaeism, to Christianity

[Raptorjesusface]

@KatanaRapierCombo2 Alright I can accept your belief in this, but I'd like to hear what you think about other religions. Why would exactly your religion be the correct one?

And don't you find it the least bit pretentious, that the entire universe was made, just for this one planet, this one species, this one group of people who believe in this one religion? (or if that's not what you believe, please enlighten me)

[KatanaRapierCombo2]

@Raptorjesusface sure, try studying about Edgar Cayce, for it could explain plenty.

I believe that my religion is not the entirely the same as my faith in Jesus Christ. I believe, however, that my religion is on to something that may be related to another fascinating religion (or way of life) Buddhism, perhaps as both continue to develop and advance (as long as anti-theists don't ruin it all) both may meet on the future, i'm not sure, but perhaps. like different clues leading to the same place

[UltraEpicLoser]

@KatanaRapierCombo2 Jesus is a path to heaven. Jesus taught love all. Would Buddha say any different?

[KatanaRapierCombo2]

@Raptorjesusface if i may indeed enlighten you, here goes:

i think that each world is like a person's mind trying to be an accomplished entity, our world which we call Earth or Gaia, is a very special and seemingly feminine planet.

us humans and our conflicts are just our world's "imaginary" psyche trying to think, personal opinion, but that's one way to look at it, and this could be truth

also the whole universe with all the worlds is the Divine's creation, as i believe so

[Raptorjesusface]

@KatanaRapierCombo2 And stop being so arrogant in your wording. "understand that", "you're mistaken", I'm sorry, but I completely understand how much hate-mongering and cruelty is in the bible, and if I didn't, I'd have underestimated it. But what about the people who lived before jesus, did they run around killing and raping on a daily basis? Because if all morality came from 2000 years ago, it would seem highly improbable that we survived so long, even if we assume the 6000 years.

[MrUrosSrb]

@Raptorjesusface morality existed before Jesus came on earth...He was in heaven as the word,before he came here in flesh.What are you talking about.

[Raptorjesusface]

@MrUrosSrb Please enlighten me as to how you know this.

[KatanaRapierCombo2]

@Raptorjesusface fair enough, i'll oblige.

[KatanaRapierCombo2]

@AidanMorrell perhaps, but Alister McGrath (the person H is debating against here) has full knowledge about genetics, which is why he was once an atheist

[Nerd042]

Thank you very much for posting these videos, DailyHitchens. This debate is my very favorite of all done by Hitchens, closely followed by the one he did with Richard Dawkins and Grayling. This (and that of DailyHitchens22) is easily one of the best subscriptions I have.

[Pitfytr]

@Nerd042 Thanks, I will endevour to watch all eleven.

[thescorpionking2020]

i wud hav sex with hitchens,even though m thoroughly hetrosexual male

[shandcunt]

@thescorpionking2020 I'm with you on that, I'd imagine after a few glasses of whiskey and listening to him talk for 20mins he could persuade almost anyone

[Nerd042]

@thescorpionking2020 lol, I'd have sex with Hitchens even though I'm 15 and he's 61 (and he has children older than me).

[Pitfytr]

@Nerd042 OMG, that's Islam in reverse. I love him too .....lol

[Nerd042]

@Pitfytr Well, it's not like Hitchens would agree! lol

[A2thedouble]

@thescorpionking2020 "thoroughly" ;D

[HaligonianType1]

Ow. Ya touched it.

[emekonen]

I actually disagree with McGrath, I dont think religion as a whole is responsible for anything. If the religion teaches violence, such as Islam, and the violence is comitted in the name of the religion that teaches it, then the religion is responsible. Christianity does not teach violence, actually it teaches the opposite so how can it be responsible for individual actions? For violence it does not condone? It would fall upon the individual in that case.

[emekonen]

Both McGrath and Hitchens are amazing at debate. I love to watch both of these guys in any given debate.

[PlanetBongoSan]

@emekonen really? i've seen mcgrath in a few debates (online, i mean, haha) and as far as i'm concerned his only strength is his extreme politeness - he's a nice, gracious and eloquent guy alright, but his arguments never seem to have any meat to them. Hitchens - less polite, but arguments as solid and meaty as arnie's tits. no comparison in my book.

[emekonen]

@PlanetBongoSan Well there is both of our bias which we need to take into consideration. I found that his debate with Dawkins, which was edited out of the film "Root of all Evil", to be much better. Hitchens is indeed good at debating and brings forth good arguments.

[PlanetBongoSan]

@emekonen yes i enjoyed that conversation too, the root of all evil series was excellent and im glad the uncut interviews found their way online. I'd agree that mcgrath performed quite well in that, but i still found his eloquence more obfuscatory than explanatory. I would readily admit to some fairly stiff bias against the theist position, however i wouldn't discount an argument without thinking it through.

[emekonen]

@PlanetBongoSan Never thought I would see that word used! We all have bias, that is understandable and atleast you accept that. I can also see why you take the position you do. An atheist perspective is much different than that of a theist, obviously, but McGrath does make some very compelling arguments. For instance his book "A finely tuned universe" is an amazing book. I think for more deeper arguments one would need to refer to David Berlinski, whom atheists hate.

[PlanetBongoSan]

@emekonen wow, i saw berlinski's debate with hitch and I could hardly believe my eyes. He was incredible, his lips kept flapping, words kept falling out, and yet he seemed to say virtually nothing at all. He addressed not one of hitchens' points, stuck to his own gameplan like a tic even though it was falling flatter than a pre-pythagorean world view, and generally came across as a dusty academic with zero insight into life as lived by the majority of people. Maybe he's better on paper.

[emekonen]

@PlanetBongoSan That may be. I always seem to find that no answer is good enough for atheists. Many used to say, for instance, that there is no evidence for the existence of Christ, then when proven wrong they attack the sources. So for me its not a big surprise, I mean honestly is there any theist that is "good enough" for an atheist? I hardly think so lol. I have to say atheists are much easier to discuss things with than protestants, usually.

[PlanetBongoSan]

@emekonen well its a fair point, i would call myself a 'strong atheist' but really my position could only be truly described as agnostic; i don't in fact believe god can be disproved. However, i'd make no apology for holding theistic claims up to the same standard of evidence as any other truth claim. I believe myself to be open minded to any evidence for the existence of god, but it always seems to boil down to personal anecdotal evidence which just doesn't cut the mustard for me. any ideas?

[mysticresistence]

@twoscoreandfour 8:00 he says plainy "all 3 monotheisms" meaning that he either does not know there are others or is just speaking in half truths on purpose. After reading his book, I & anyone else who has ever studied comparative religion can clearly see he has no idea what the hell he is talking about.

Also, there are less Muslims than there are members of NRMs in America, so Islam has nothing to do with it, plus many Native Religions also have a monotheistic creator, like the Great Spirit.

[mysticresistence]

"all three monotheisms"? That alone shows that he does not know what he is talking about. Let's see...Zoroastrianism, Shangdi (heaven worship) Mandainism, Eckankar, Deism, etc etc etc....there are allot more than three monotheistic religions, mr. Hitchens, and anyone who knew anything about religion would understand that.

[memento18poker]

@mysticresistence I agree, but I think he is talking about the three monotheism's which are the most subscribed and publicized today. As for deism, well I'd have a potential gripe with that.

peace!

[thescorpionking2020]

@mysticresistence when he talks about three monotheism he talks abt judaism,islam and christianity the most followed monotheisms in the world,others dont need much mention

[mysticresistence]

@thescorpionking2020 Wow, than you also do not know what you are talking about: Judaism is not one of the three most followed monotheistic religions on Earth. Sikhism is a monotheistic religion (they worship the genderless personal deity called many different names) and it has about ten million more followers than Judaism.

Want to find out about religion? Read Elaine Pagels, Joseph Campbell, Carl Jung and Bart Earhman, not the educator of sleezy Vanity Faire magazine...

[emekonen]

@mysticresistence Hitchens is funny tho, he wrote a book on Mother Theresa and there was not one source in the book. What makes that so bad is that he is a journalist LMAO.

[mysticresistence]

@emekonen I always considered Hitchens an "alleged journalist" as objectivity is something one needs to be a journalist, & Hitchens has none of that.

[emekonen]

@mysticresistence Generally I considered him very good at research and providing good sources, he is also very knowledgable in many areas making him a difficult person to debate. As opposed to Dawkins who seemingly has no idea about what he is attacking, and many times just looks plain stupid. Even though Hitchens has made mistakes, he is still a credible individual in my eyes. Though I do not agree with him on many things, I respect him greatly.

[MsCoralline]

@emekonen

Really? Much of it is personal anecdotes from Hitchens; the rest is newspaper reports (well-cited), personal recollections from others (well-cited), and the like. What, in particular, is your beef?

[emekonen]

@MsCoralline With who? Hitchens wrote a book in which he cites no sources. Dawkins, well he picks extreme people and says that represents that particular religion, then leaves debates like the one with McGrath, out. Dawkins may be a great scientist but he is no theologian and knows little of religion. Hitchens does know quite a bit about religion, which is what makes him fun.

[MsCoralline]

@emekonen

I'd have thought that was obvious, emekonen. Hitchens *did* cite sources (as I asserted): newspaper articles are dated and attributed, personal anecdotes are dated and attributed. What -- if not those -- do you mean by a citation?

[emekonen]

@MsCoralline His book on Mother Theresa has no sources, its all hear say. That is what I am saying, hes a great journalist in my eyes and that is what made that book so despicable. Otherwise he is a very interesting character whom I love to watch debate, especially against shmuley, thought it was pretty even until the end when Hitchens really did get him.

[MsCoralline]

@emekonen

If you don't consider quoting the people who made the statements, nor the newspapers in which they appear "sources", then you're right. However, those are both sources of information, and they're noted in the book.

[emekonen]

@MsCoralline I dont think that would fly if I were writing something on Hitchens lol. In essence your just saying what people said, their interpretation of a letter from Mother Teresa or something she said. Alot of speculation, very little proof. I would expect an atheist who constantly bickers about sources to provide something much more valid. Seriously? If I took that to my publisher they would laugh.

[MsCoralline]

@emekonen

And one is supposed to cite those things... how? Was Hitchens' book on Mother Theresa supposed to be encyclopaedic, or an essay?

[emekonen]

@MsCoralline Yes! He is a journalist. That means he is supposed to be unbiased, just report or give the information to the reader and let them interpret the evidence. Instead he has a sexually suggestive book title, complete with rash generalizations, gross interpretations, and horrible blanket statements. Thats not journalism.

[emekonen]

@MsCoralline Let us say that the majority of what he claims is correct, then there would be more than just what people had to say, their opinions and interpretations. For all I know she was sadistic, but you cannot, as a journalist, write something with an agenda, which he clearly did. I actually know a couple people who spent time there with her and have quite the opposite story. My sister lives in india and was very familiar with her, and never witnessed any abuse.

[TVOham]

@emekonen

You're saying Dawkins knows little about Religion?

I thought about entering this discussion until I read that and then I deemed you unworthy of my opinions.

[emekonen]

@TVOham Yes I am saying that. I have read his books and he knows very little about religion. Your opinion may be different but the facts speak for themselves, dawkins is not a theologian nor is he educated in any sort of religious field. Yes I am saying that, if you think otherwise then that is your opinion.

[TVOham]

@emekonen

Well, you're very wrong.

Dawkins would not be a world reknowned debater on Religion if he knew very little about it.

I don't have a degree in theology, but I consider myself to be very well-learned when it comes to Religion. In fact, being well-learned on the subject is the main thing that turns Christians to atheism in the first place! Most people have belief without knowledge, we have disbelief WITH knowledge.

[emekonen]

@TVOham Well according to your perspective I am wrong, not according to the facts. The fact is this, Dawkins makes the most outrageous statements in his books, especially the God delusion. He classifies all religion as being "the same" which is inherently false. Having a vague knowledge on a subject does not mean you know anything. Using your logic I could read a few biology books and then consider myself knowing a lot about it. Thats absurd. Dawkins isnt even a good debater.

[TVOham]

@emekonen

All Religions ARE essentially the same(unless you're looking at lower level religions such as buddhism, taoism or such things). When he says that, he is referring to the main 4 Religions in the world, which are Christianity(and all factions of it), Islam, Hinduism, and Judaism.

I don't have a "vague" knowledge on the subject. More then half my life I was a Christian myself. I devoted the last few years of my life to studying Religion as a whole and other Religions and found them all

[emekonen]

@TVOham First off Christianity and Judaism are closely related, hinduism is not LOL. Islam is a violent cult. You do have a vague understanding, that is a fact, according to what you just said about the 4 main religions all being related to or factions of, Christianity. What denomination were you a part of? That will determine just how much you actually know.

[TVOham]

@emekonen

Try to actually read my post next time before making stupid statements. I never said the four religions were related to christianity. Ding Ding, you're incorrect, F for your reading grade.

No, you're just another ignorant person, if you'd actually read the Qur'an you'd see that it's pretty much identical to the Bible in its message. Your post just proved your complete ignorance and stupidity. "Islam is a violent cult." <<Registers my point.

[TVOham]

@emekonen

to be false(given the evidence).

If Dawkins was not a good debater, he would not be asked to debate by the best Theist debators of our time such as Craig. Dawkins is one of the worlds most prominent public speakers and(whether you'll admit it or not) a great debator.

[emekonen]

@TVOham Kent Hovind is a great debater, doesnt mean he is right LOL. Dawkins just bashes religion, then talks about how great science is. If more people had a better understanding of what it is that the believed, they would easily answer Dawkins and easily refute him. Hence his debate with McGrath being cut from "Root of all Evil" a movie in which Ted Haggard even held his own against Dawkins, who seemed to find the most radical and absurd people for his film while cutting McGrath out.

[TVOham]

@emekonen

You really just look stupid. You're questioning a world reknowned public speaker's credentials and debating skill. Again, if he wasn't a good debater then why does every prominent Creationist debater want to debate him?I'm starting to think you're jealous of Dawkins as I'm reading these evermore fallacy filled posts.

This is the common Creationist strategy: Turn the atheists arguments against him and make him look like a hypocrite. Terms like "radical" and "absurd" will be used.

[TVOham]

@emekonen

I think the radical and absurd thing here is that Religion is still accepted in the world today. We have Science to take its place. We KNOW with evidence now. There is no more need to guess.

[itarethetroll]

@TVOham Well, I would agree that Dawkins wins all of his debates, simply because he's arguing for what is absolutely true. However, I don't think he's the greatest debater. His arguments are sound, but there are just so many points he could bring up that he doesn't really bother with, whereas someone like Hitchens has so many. I guess the reason is Dawkins is a scientist and doesn't need to be dialectical since he can just display the cold hard facts on a slide show or something.

[TVOham]

@itarethetroll

He's not a professional debater. Being a professional debater and a great public speaker are two different things. Dawkins is one of the great public speakers of the decade, and he's a fair debater because like you said, it's hard to lose a debate when you're using the facts.

[QuasiRandomViewer]

4:20 -- The cartoon mentioned by Michael Cromartie in his introduction can be found by doing a Google image search on  070625_cartoon_9_a12551_p465

and following the sole result.

[hornylink]

I read god is not great, was a pretty good book, thought he was a chick for almost half of it though :S still it's got plenty of rough bits

[oneznzeroz]

I love how Hitchens can only tolerate his glasses on his face for like 5 seconds lol

[ArrogantAtheism]

@oneznzeroz He has to keep them in check

[luarionte]

@oneznzeroz

LOL

Maybe it's a nervous tic! Maybe he was terrified of being bored himself by the "pointlessness" of this debate: "Do I really need to be here? Is there still any rational discussion to be made about this subject? I so tired of ignorant people like these" - its what he must've been thinking! (and i agree with him)

Pointless discussion: it's like discussing flat Earth vs round Earth!

[MugenTJ]

@oneznzeroz the man is probably farsighted. He only needs it for that amount of time to glance at his outline. (my guess)

[meteda1070]

@oneznzeroz It's because he has a few words written down to remind him of his talking points. But he takes them off because he's improving up on stage and isn't reading off a printed out speach like most of the people he debates.

[Moonbogg]

So we've all seen this before? I want fresh blood damn it!

[carouselcarouse]

To make Georgetown a global leader in the interdisciplinary study of religion and in the promotion of intereligious understanding.

Mmmmmmmmmm.

What about understanding atheism?

[BigMikeMcBastard]

@carouselcarouse Their belief is that god exists, therefore atheism is inherently incorrect and doesn't deserve to be understood.

[akboss9000]

@BigMike,

As one who believes God does exist, I would not use the phrase 'doesn't deserve to be understood' - I think to have an educated philosophical discussion that both worldviews need to be given respect and tolerance, something I don't often see from the atheist camp when debating believers. McGrath and Dawkins is a great discussion and they can debate without being offensive or demeaning, which is the way this sensitive topic should be discussed.

[BigMikeMcBastard]

@akboss9000 I'm not suggesting atheism is or isn't something that overall deserves understanding. I'm saying that the institution described is one which is interested in inter-religious understanding. As atheists are a minority and, up until recently, a scarcely heard of and mostly distrusted minority, you can hardly blame them for discounting them from their own world view, such as it is.

Of course, guys like Hitchens and Dawkins and others changed all that, but that's what this debate is about

[carouselcarouse]

Of course, its a logical conclusion. You are correct.

I don't actually like the term atheism anyway, there should be a better word,

[BigMikeMcBastard]

@carouselcarouse There's no better word for it. The issue is that people who view everything as a belief system assume atheism is one and use it as a catch-all for anyone who shares Hitchens's and others' view. What there needs to be is a new word to describe the 'Fightin' Atheist', the ones like Dawkins who will relatively aggressively (in words) fight theistic monopoly over society. That way the atheists who aren't too concerned about it can be free from carrying their burden.

[carouselcarouse]

I've only heard (other than as athiests) Hitchens and Dawkins described as dogmatic athiests, normally by someone religous on the back foot.

I genuinely belive these two people in particular will be talked about hundreds of years time as real ground breaking champions for a worth while cause.

Its great to see someone challenging organised religion and do it well.

I appreciate your reply's BigMike.

[BigMikeMcBastard]

@carouselcarouse Yeah, I've heard that one, and I don't really think it's a good term. There's nothing "dogmatic" about what they're doing. They don't disbelieve in god anymore than the run-of-the-mill atheist, nor is there any stipulation for atheists to expound their ideas and try to make atheists more politically relevant.

Just part of the plan to turn atheism into a competing religion of sorts.