1. Comment #79150 by SilentMike on October 16, 2007 at 10:06 am

just out of curiousity before even watching this one. Is there anyone here still taking McGrath seriously?

That guy just strikes me as a very small person that makes a living out of Dawkins' fame. How come he can't seem to manage writing a book that isn't about somebody else's work?

Other Comments by SilentMike

2. Comment #79151 by ADePSP on October 16, 2007 at 10:12 am

Brilliant, I've been waiting for this for ages...

Other Comments by ADePSP

3. Comment #79154 by Smythe on October 16, 2007 at 10:32 am

If McGrath starts every sentence with 'what I would like to say is' or 'what I would want to say to that is' like he did in the debate with Prof. Dawkins, I'm going to lose it.

Other Comments by Smythe

4. Comment #79156 by Zero on October 16, 2007 at 10:44 am

toomanytribbles: Get Firefox and the UnPlug addon and you can download media from most sites. For example, the monstrously long link below lets you download the video in question:
http://vp.video.google.com/videodownload?version=0&secureurl=uAAAAHN3UmANVRb3tPAYcEX372RnfM5f0dYsT-67XFrvhYnbNVKRfdjuisLQdiwb5e3S60D1-dTDQYso-AHouoHmWnYTtglkxaVNp9--ydIxyhq9yP_iwO3FyqidFAzrmuW3-tH6BRgrda_yc4FWlthDqiRrO-ufVqEA7kIr46KJzJYsZgBaS9gnvEHkyflJV1S3LiUn4r1otEJg7juo1qc13_MAT4ZV0U0b1OBuxXR1KC4mck1SV3yFxUBr6D_DiFns7w&sigh=6XClfTWzH0SIeI-dnRALi9HkYpU&begin=0&len=6035997&docid=-6851159367044940771

Other Comments by Zero

5. Comment #79158 by maton100 on October 16, 2007 at 10:47 am

Ha! McGrath is in da house. This will be fun.

Other Comments by maton100

6. Comment #79160 by shellemush on October 16, 2007 at 11:02 am

Mr Hitchens,
I am clasping my hands in joy at your remarks! Thank you! Smiling.

And I must say that, may you regard it as a "religion" on not, Paganism REVELS in its sexuality.

I VERY much enjoyed this debate. Thank you!

Other Comments by shellemush

7. Comment #79161 by AnthSynthasome on October 16, 2007 at 11:03 am

I was fortunate enough to attend this debate and was, avoiding the use of some foul-mouthed caveat, 'miffed' to see how Jacqueline Salmon of the Washington Post wrote of the debate. I suggest watching the debate for yourselves and comparing it to her peculiar interpretation. I couldn't help but wonder if we were talking about the same debate! Her article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/12/AR2007101202258.html

A brief aside: I wish you could have seen the flat affect on the faces of some of the Jesuits in attendance after a few of Hitchen's deliveries. It was utterly priceless.

Other Comments by AnthSynthasome

8. Comment #79163 by ush on October 16, 2007 at 11:07 am

Hitchens closed his speech brilliantly, I entirely agree with him, and in fact I was thinking the very same thing last night. The human race will not reach it's full capacity until we leave religion and God where they so rightly belong.

Other Comments by ush

9. Comment #79164 by Logicel on October 16, 2007 at 11:10 am

Hitch's speech was excellent: his delivery of his basic points of the immorality and indecency of Christian beliefs was sharpened by his saying at first that Christian belief is very hard to pin down and will try to do so with McGrath. Wow. I really appreciated that tack.

However, I could not take more than a few minutes of McGrath before I turned off the vid. Goodness forgive me, I am just allergic to McGrath.

I will skip him and catch Hitch's rebuttal and check out the questions and answers.

Other Comments by Logicel

10. Comment #79166 by Hypoluxa on October 16, 2007 at 11:11 am

"Comment #79154 by Smythe on October 16, 2007 at 10:32 am
If McGrath starts every sentence with 'what I would like to say is' or 'what I would want to say to that is' like he did in the debate with Prof. Dawkins, I'm going to lose it."

LOL indeed, yes he does tend to use that opening a lot!

Other Comments by Hypoluxa

11. Comment #79167 by Theocrapcy on October 16, 2007 at 11:16 am

Alistair McGrath is a nonce. Hitch wiped the floor with him.

Other Comments by Theocrapcy

12. Comment #79169 by automath on October 16, 2007 at 11:26 am

Nice to see McGrath opening his speech with a straw man. He wasn't asked there to debate about atheism. Something he seems to have a rather large hang up about. I guess he'll use Hitchen's anti-theism to smear all atheists.

Logicel, you're not the only one that has such a reaction to McGrath. There again he is an odious little man who does nothing but misrepresent atheists at ever opportunity. I can certainly see why he decided that theism was closer to his ideals.

Other Comments by automath

13. Comment #79171 by Logicel on October 16, 2007 at 11:34 am

Ok, I was able to see a bit of McGrath and I can, because of catching Dan Dennett's wonderful talk at the Atheist get together, describe McGrath as an amusing Murkie. No need to get angry at the poor sod. McGrath loves the fog, the quivering jelly of personalized interpretations of Christian beliefs, etc. How very amusing!!!

Other Comments by Logicel

14. Comment #79173 by Thor on October 16, 2007 at 11:39 am

Here is another good writeup of the debate:
http://christopherhitchenswatch.blogspot.com/2007/10/house-divided-hitch-at-georgetown.html

(As you can probably guess from the title this is an Anti-Hitchens site, but one of the authors there sent a friend as "correspondent" to the conference, someone who didn't know anything about Hitchens before and so didn't have any preconceived notions, be they good or bad, and he was obviously quite impressed by the way Hitchens dealt with McGrath. Kudos to them for posting something positive about Hitchens, though.)

Other Comments by Thor

15. Comment #79175 by automath on October 16, 2007 at 11:42 am

Swapping his old faith of atheism? I think, this is going to become extremely dogmatic extremely fast.

Other Comments by automath

16. Comment #79176 by Bonzai on October 16, 2007 at 11:43 am

McGrath concedes that many people "pervert" religion to do evil things (and just not the "fringe" as Hitchens demonstrates)and also that there is human wisdom even before Moses came down from Sinai. So what is the point of "revelation"? How do people become better as a result of it? In what way does religion provide a "transcendental foundation" for morality if believers all cherry pick and cannot even agree on what their "God" actually says.

Aside from the poor arguments I think McGrath is long winded, tedious and he has really annoying mannerism.

Other Comments by Bonzai

17. Comment #79177 by SilentMike on October 16, 2007 at 11:44 am

There's something very comical about the way that this McGrath person moves about as he talks. Don't you find?

Other Comments by SilentMike

18. Comment #79178 by steve99 on October 16, 2007 at 11:46 am

There's something very comical about the way that this McGrath person moves about as he talks. Don't you find?

I really wish discussions on this site would not descend to this level. We should be discussing ideas, not making irrelevant ad-hominem attacks based on mannerisms.

Other Comments by steve99

19. Comment #79179 by Stephen Maxwell on October 16, 2007 at 11:47 am

There's something very comical about the way that this McGrath person moves about as he talks. Don't you find?

It's hilarious that the camera keeps moving from side to side to follow him. steve99, I'll be talking about the ideas when I finish watching the debate. This was just an observation I picked up on

Other Comments by Stephen Maxwell

20. Comment #79180 by steve99 on October 16, 2007 at 11:51 am

This was just an observation I picked up on

Sorry, but to me, it seems to be mocking the person rather than the ideas.

Other Comments by steve99

21. Comment #79181 by detox on October 16, 2007 at 11:52 am

Half way through. Have to take a break. Hitch opens in stellar fashion: Homo Sapiens has been on the planet for (at least) 100,000 years and god decides to intervene after 98,000 years. McGrath comes back with,"I would want to make this point...". Aargh.

McGrath's rebuttal so far is:

"Religion has done damage but is this typical or is this a fringe element?"
And:
"What is the fringe? What is the centre?"

He goes on to claim that "Jesus refuses to do violence". If I remember my scriptures Jesus drove the money lenders out of the temple. What do he use? A tickle stick?

In the interests of balance I'm going to trudge my way through the rest of McGrath's verbal diarrhea.

Other Comments by detox

22. Comment #79182 by SilentMike on October 16, 2007 at 11:54 am

You may have a point there.

Way I look at it, on the other hand, I've already given McGrath enough seriousness, so I though I'd have a little fun. But this is a public forum and we are respectable people (Well you are anyway). I'll be good.

Other Comments by SilentMike

23. Comment #79184 by Quine on October 16, 2007 at 12:01 pm

I liked the point Hitch made about the world being run by 20 somethings for 98,000 years. Is there any surprise these myths came out of our distant past?

Other Comments by Quine

24. Comment #79185 by Bonzai on October 16, 2007 at 12:01 pm

McGrath pleads that "there are many ways to interpret the scriptures" besides Hitchens' sado masochistic take. Well if there are many conflicting ways to interpret the same text it would indicate that the text itself is just a pile of psychobables.

If as McGrath claims that the bible has to be read through the "lens of Christ", one has to wonder why did God send a revelation which was almost guaranteed to be "misinterpreted" by its natural reading? Was he a joker? Was he setting us up? Was he drunk?

Other Comments by Bonzai

25. Comment #79187 by steve99 on October 16, 2007 at 12:03 pm

Way I look at it, on the other hand, I've already given McGrath enough seriousness, so I though I'd have a little fun. But this is a public forum and we are respectable people (Well you are anyway). I'll be good.

I don't want to encourage people to be good :) I am only after effective techniques for attacking religion and irrationality.

Other Comments by steve99

26. Comment #79188 by PrimeNumbers on October 16, 2007 at 12:06 pm

McGrath so far, makes no argument at all, but waffles. He claims the "issues" of relgion are of the "fringe" element. Personally, the key claims of religion in that it allows for an afterlife is the primary cause for the harm it causes, and how it allows it's followers to harm others.

And Morality cannot be sustained without a metaphysical basis? That's just bollocks. How can you ever be sure you're getting the "correct" morality, and that you're not being deceived by a "devll" or something or other?

No matter what your worldview, McGrath is just not as nice to listen to or is as entertaining as Hitchins, and whereas Hitchins seems to be adressing McGrath's points, the reverse seems not to be the case....

Other Comments by PrimeNumbers

27. Comment #79190 by Quine on October 16, 2007 at 12:16 pm

What did Hitch say just before McGrath said, "I'll turn away and count to five"? I think it was something about wishing the water was turned to wine?

Other Comments by Quine

28. Comment #79191 by schmeer on October 16, 2007 at 12:19 pm

I found McGrath evaded nearly every question asked, even though Hitchens was very direct in asking.
McGrath's answers were almost always mind-numbingly 'murky', I was forced to rewind several times to follow his nonsensical rant.

Other Comments by schmeer

29. Comment #79193 by coretemprising on October 16, 2007 at 12:20 pm

Lack of rational content aside, McGrath's delivery is very affected and odd. It's difficult to put up with long enough to even discover if he has anything worthwhile to say. Which I'm sure he doesn't.

Sometimes, my son has been watching too many silly videos for too long, and afterwards he himself is acting silly and strange. I have to say to him, "Hey, stop acting like a cartoon character; time to get real."

I feel like I want to say something similar to McGrath, even though I don't know where he's gotten it from. Just something so unreal and weird about the man. When he said that when he was an atheist he believed that religion was for bad, sad, or mad people, I had to laugh a bit: surely he's now one of the mad ones (mad as in crazy). Hello? Is anybody in there?

Other Comments by coretemprising

30. Comment #79195 by Titchfield on October 16, 2007 at 12:27 pm

I really wanted to try and watch all of this but after Hitchens excellent intro Mcrgrath came on to speak. I honestly couldn't stomach watching him hop about on stage as if someone had poured itching powder down his trousers, he seems to be the most irritating type of person. Reading others comment I don't think I'e missed much though.

Other Comments by Titchfield

31. Comment #79196 by ADePSP on October 16, 2007 at 12:29 pm

As expected, Hitchens kicks ass yet again... I may not agree completely with all of his views but he's always entertainingly eloquent...

McGraph said something I thought was ok at some point but there was only one winner here... :D

Other Comments by ADePSP

32. Comment #79197 by NAIANF87 on October 16, 2007 at 12:32 pm

I've been waiting to see this...

Other Comments by NAIANF87

33. Comment #79198 by jayalenik on October 16, 2007 at 12:33 pm

RE:
27. Comment #79187 by steve99 on October 16, 2007 at 12:03 pm
I don't want to encourage people to be good :) I am only after effective techniques for attacking religion and irrationality.

T Jefferson has an effective technique.....

"Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them" T Jefferson

Other Comments by jayalenik

34. Comment #79199 by steve99 on October 16, 2007 at 12:38 pm

"Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them" T Jefferson

Of course, this was ridicule of ideas, not people.

Other Comments by steve99

35. Comment #79200 by tangerine_tree on October 16, 2007 at 12:38 pm

"I'll be outside having a smoke and a miniature" to make sure no question is unanswered - excellent.

I view Mcgrath as beneficial to our cause - he is one of the most cringeworthy talkers I have heard.

he said "Let me take this point further" several times and proceeded not to.

Hitch won with a KO

Other Comments by tangerine_tree

36. Comment #79202 by Logicel on October 16, 2007 at 12:43 pm

coretemprising, now that I am using the amusing Murkie handle provided by Dan Dennett (if you haven't see the vid of Dennett's talk at the atheist shingdig, make sure you do, it's featured at the top of this page), I am able to watch him a bit longer than usual, and I am now struck by his childlike mannerisms: eye expressions of wonder, vocal inflections of innocent glee, that I missed entirely when viewing previous vids of this amusing Murkie. His Christianity drug of choice seems to be keeping him youthful! It is odd to see such childlike mannerisms exhibited by an adult.

I have broached this topic before, about how physical mannerisms do tell us a lot about a person, and that we all use those physical indications in trying to comprehend someone (including the sometimes prissy steve99), as a majority of our communication is non verbal. In addition, when one's content is so dim-witted as McGrath's is, it behooves us to notice the non-verbal aspects of his communication.

Other Comments by Logicel

37. Comment #79203 by notsobad on October 16, 2007 at 12:45 pm

Alister McGrath has nothing new to say because Christianity has nothing new to say.

Even these new hippie Christians cherry-picking the Bible to the max, worshipping the god of the gaps cannot offer anything that hasn't been torn apart by reason and practicality already.

Other Comments by notsobad

38. Comment #79204 by Northern Bright on October 16, 2007 at 12:52 pm

I can't abide Alister McGrath, but actually I thought he put up a better fight here than I was expecting: I truly thought Hitch would chew him up and spit him out again, but I don't think the battle was as one-sided as that.

That said, everyone who has commented on his aggravating mannerisms and deliberate obfuscations is absolutely right, and I shared the temptation to hit fast forward when he came on. (Though I didn't give in to it, I hasten to add!)

What REALLY made me laugh was the way he hastened to tell the audience, within the first minute or so of his speech, that he used to be an atheist. I have just finished reading his book, "The Dawkins Delusion?" and - I promise I'm not exaggerating here - by page 2 of the main body of the book, he has told his readers no fewer than SIX times that he used to be an atheist!!!! He obviously thinks this is a killer argument.

And not one he limits to just atheism, either: in the course of his performance in this video, he also tells us he "used to be a scientist", "used to be a Marxist", and "used to be a historian" too. He obviously doesn't have much staying power. If he takes Hitch on a few more times, with a bit of luck he'll soon be saying "I used to be a Christian" too...

Other Comments by Northern Bright

39. Comment #79205 by jayalenik on October 16, 2007 at 12:52 pm

I guess I paint with a broader brush than TJ
To me like a painter whose work I judge on merit of subject technique medium etc. I look at a speech in the same way. Jay

Other Comments by jayalenik

40. Comment #79206 by jayalenik on October 16, 2007 at 12:55 pm

used to be an atheist "used to be a scientist", "used to be a Marxist", and "used to be a historian"

It sees no one will have him

Other Comments by jayalenik

41. Comment #79207 by BigJohn on October 16, 2007 at 12:57 pm

Sorry, but, McGrath's Monty-Pythonic appearance and bobbing about distracted me so much that I could not appreciate what he was trying to say. I find Hitchens to be much more solid and believable that the vacuous points made by McGrath dissolved into vaporous Christian proselytization.

Other Comments by BigJohn

42. Comment #79208 by NAIANF87 on October 16, 2007 at 12:58 pm

evidential basis of atheism???

Other Comments by NAIANF87

43. Comment #79210 by Rtambree on October 16, 2007 at 1:06 pm

Wrong format - too loose. One needs to pin McGrath down with a specific question that requires a specific answer. One needs a bulldog interviewer (e.g. Jeremy Paxman) who is relentless, "No, don't woffle, answer the question, do you actually believe this?"

McGrath is unintelligible. His phrases are grammatically correct, but totally empty of content.

He didn't respond to McGrath's points. They might as well not have been in the same room.

Other Comments by Rtambree

44. Comment #79211 by Quine on October 16, 2007 at 1:10 pm

Comment #79161 by AnthSynthasome

A brief aside: I wish you could have seen the flat affect on the faces of some of the Jesuits in attendance after a few of Hitchen's deliveries. It was utterly priceless.

As a youth, I was (in part) educated by Jesuits and I would have paid dearly to have seen those faces. (Especially after the creepy old virgins crack. )

Other Comments by Quine

45. Comment #79213 by NAIANF87 on October 16, 2007 at 1:15 pm

I wish Hitchens would address McGrath's use of "atheism" as an ideology. He needs to reference Sam Harris' point on that.

Other Comments by NAIANF87

46. Comment #79214 by Northern Bright on October 16, 2007 at 1:16 pm

44. Comment #79208 by NAIANF87 on October 16, 2007 at 12:58 pm

evidential basis of atheism???

I'm sorry but I don't understand your comment, NAIANF87. Are you quoting something said by either McGrath or Hitchens and questioning the validity of the notion, or are you genuinely asking what the evidential basis of atheism might be?

Other Comments by Northern Bright

47. Comment #79215 by nogodsever on October 16, 2007 at 1:19 pm

Why would anyone ever agree to debate Hitch on this subject? The guy is a bulldozer.

Other Comments by nogodsever

48. Comment #79216 by AdrianT on October 16, 2007 at 1:21 pm

I just don't follow Dr McGrath - it's a bit like an extra long edition of thought for the day here - ...wishy washy!! I don't understand how he knows about god - I guess he and CS Lewis have had the same einsteinian wonder when the sun comes up, but where does jesus et al come in to it?

Hitch came up with some wonderfully convincing arguments, clear, to the point with his powerful use of language and literary quotes.

Other Comments by AdrianT

49. Comment #79218 by jayalenik on October 16, 2007 at 1:31 pm

Whats a miniature?

Other Comments by jayalenik

50. Comment #79219 by Bonzai on October 16, 2007 at 1:33 pm

But to tell you the truth, I would rather suffer McGarth than to read the spams from our resident theist Dianelos. At least McGarth has some entertainment value even in an annoying way and he is not as pushy. It is probably what an atheist hell would be like, reading and responding to Dianelos' inane arguments that go nowhere 24/7 for eternity.

Other Comments by Bonzai