51. Comment #79223 by SilentMike on October 16, 2007 at 1:59 pm

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

I agree. This is exactly what I meant.

About McGrath's argument. As I expected he doesn't have one. A series of asseritions and little more. McGrath kept conjouring Jesus out of his sleave, insisting that God makes sense considering the evidence (why? What evidence?), and claiming that atheism is a faith/idiology (oh please...). A whole lot of nothing. Surprise surprise.

Actually I think that we should encourage the McGraths of this world. These ships very easy to sink in battle, and the ordinary religious can actually see this. These are people who figured out that the whole blind faith thing is a weakness, so they decided to change into "non-blind faith". What they do is try to claim that their faith makes sense without referring to scriptural or clerical authority. They find a few ancient scholars and a few verses that seem to suit their agenda and try to set up a persuasive argument.

Problem is they can't. And the bigger problem for the other side is that the faithful can see that they can't. You see the faithful aren't stupid. They believe because they have faith. The same old blind faith that the McGraths of this world are trying to set aside. When McGrath tells them to set aside faith and listen to his argument he actually sounds very unconvincing to many of them (not stupid remember?). Later, when Hitchens or Dawkins blows McGrath out of the water these people can see that. So this is actually good for our side. McGrath would be far more successful with the pious if he did appeal to authority and throw points of blind faith about shamelessly.

I'm not saying we'll get mass deconversions mind you. I am saying however that it's going to be easier to reach those people after they've been instructed to lower their principle defence by the person representing thier own side. This should come as no surprise. It is quite clear that letting go of blind faith will serve truth in the long run. If McGrath ever succeeds in this he will end up all alone on the christian side.

Other Comments by SilentMike

52. Comment #79229 by SilentMike on October 16, 2007 at 2:27 pm

Just Saw the end (had a bit of truble earlier). Total sell out by McGrath in the closign remark, going back to faith. Paradoxically it may actually strengthen his position among some of the faithful. Too bad Hitchens didn't have the oportunity to challenge that last remark.

Other Comments by SilentMike

53. Comment #79230 by Johnny O on October 16, 2007 at 2:33 pm

Whats a miniature?

Liitle bottles of spirits, Whisky, Brandy, Port etc). The sort that you get in a mini bar in a hotel room

Other Comments by Johnny O

54. Comment #79231 by Hypoluxa on October 16, 2007 at 2:34 pm

Ok...McGrath seems like a very nice and cordial individual, however his whish washy arguments never really answer Hitchens questions point blank, or from what I remeber in his Dawkins video debate, he (McGrath) does the same.

He seems to like to ponder the "why" aspects of evil and violence, while Hitchens and Dakins flat out state is because we are primates, animals! Thats why! We are gentically predispositioned to do so! It is just a matter of the individual to overcome those natural urges and or thought patterns.

Other Comments by Hypoluxa

55. Comment #79234 by jaytee_555 on October 16, 2007 at 2:37 pm

Wow! Hitch was ****ing brilliant.

It's ten minutes since the video ended, and I can't wipe the smile off my face. Hitchins wiped the floor with McGrath, wrung him out, then hung him up to dry. I really can't see Mc Grath agreeing to another round. Not if he has any sense.

Jaytee (UK)

Other Comments by jaytee_555

56. Comment #79236 by Johnny O on October 16, 2007 at 2:38 pm

I don't understand why McGrath takes part in these debates. He never comes out of them even close to winning.

You think it's the money? It can't be to advertise his books. I'd never have bought The Dawkins' delusion if I had heard him speak first. And that is why I can't bring myself to pay for Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life. I can't help think that is just more of the same non-specific, evasive teapot worshipping crap. Has anyone read it?

Other Comments by Johnny O

57. Comment #79237 by phasmagigas on October 16, 2007 at 2:38 pm

that business about health and religion, more a case of religious individuals feeling part of a big social network, reaffirming each other beliefs which true or not probably reduces stress and so ups health.

according to AM, jesus is the image of the invisible god, right. 33-35 mns he starts preaching without even knowing.



Other Comments by phasmagigas

58. Comment #79238 by The author on October 16, 2007 at 2:43 pm

I think McGrath is actually a pretty good christian apologist. He certainly has a talent for selling nonsense in a cheap way. And if the nonsense is cheap enough, many people feel motivated to try and buy it.

Other Comments by The author

59. Comment #79242 by jimmm33 on October 16, 2007 at 2:49 pm

That was entertainment!

McGrath was throughly beaten. Hitchens is at his best in this format.

Other Comments by jimmm33

60. Comment #79243 by phasmagigas on October 16, 2007 at 2:51 pm

oh jesus, 42 mins in hes telling a joke? about 2 catholic nums, I need to put my fingers in my ears, invariably jokes about nums are rather distasteful.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

61. Comment #79244 by jakelovatto on October 16, 2007 at 2:53 pm

The opening speech by Hitchens is i think the best i have seen from him. Wonderful, powerful, faith-destroying stuff.

Other Comments by jakelovatto

62. Comment #79245 by aoratos philos on October 16, 2007 at 2:53 pm

McGrath annoys me big time..

His maddening turns of phrase like; "I would want to say" or "I would want to suggest" etc.

He doesn't seem to be able to represent his own position without sowing in a get out clause of non-specificity, or dubious ownership of his own position by way of language.
Not only is the content of his position woolly and esoteric, but one can't be sure if it's even his position at all?!

If I may apply Dan Dennett's categorisation;

McGrath thinks he's a "Super", but his language and ideas give him away as a "Murky".

Other Comments by aoratos philos

63. Comment #79246 by Donald on October 16, 2007 at 2:57 pm

Let's hope the debate serves it's main purpose of raising awareness of the atheist "uprising" in Washington DC. I don't expect it will change any of the minds on this site. Here is how I saw it:

Hitchens gives a typically hard-hitting well-focused rundown of religious nonsense, the immorality of OT fables, and the immorality of god waiting 100,000 years before sacrificing a special human to counterbalance the sins of future humans, provided the future humans agree to love and fear him. Also gives an origin of the term "scapegoat" which I had not heard before.

McGrath spends the first couple of minutes on his background as an atheist in Northern Ireland. It's carefully crafted stuff designed to generate emotional empathy in the audience, and has nothing about the topic of debate.

Then he announces his intention to be respectful and polite, and have a debate in which he challenges, agrees on some points and will raise some points out of curiousity. Ok.

At last he says "I want to focus on CH's main arguments". Well, he's wasted 3 minutes so far, but better late than never. He summarises CH's points as "religion is immoral and toxic" and then says "these seem to be very significant arguments and very significant claims, and therefore I want to engage with them".

Yes, that's what you've been brought here to do - are you going to start now?

He spends the next minute saying he won't have time to interact with CH properly, and he apologises at length to CH and the audience for that, but he hopes that he can "begin to get this conversation moving forward".

I am poised on the edge of my seat - perhaps this is the point at which he starts the debate proper?

Well, no. The next thing he says is more delaying tactics: "[referring to CH's initial speech] there are aspects of this I would love to have heard more about, for example about the empirical effect religion has on people".

Does he mean suicide mombers? I suspect not. It turns out he has in mind a study which shows a positive correlation between religious commitment and wellbeing.

Then we get the bland "this does not prove there is a god, and does not prove that all forms of religion are good for you".

Good - he gets some things RIGHT!

He goes on "there are some forms of religion which are pathological - that damage people".

Good - RIGHT - but I think I know what his next claim will be.

I am wrong. His next point is "there is a need for a discussion about what is pathogical and what is normal".

Are we headed for metaphysics?

"what are the centre and what are the fringes and what is the impact of religion in general".

No, fortunately his direction does not seem to be metaphysics, more an attempt to distract the audience from the key points about whether religion is truth or fable, moral or immoral, to distract attention away from the obvious harm religion does, into discussions about fuzzy goodness he claims the milder infections produce.


I switched off at this point. I needed to recover - I couldn't take any more of McGrath for a while - I was feeling queasy.

Other Comments by Donald

64. Comment #79248 by Spock on October 16, 2007 at 3:00 pm

Wow, Hitch sliced and diced McGrath. It was a pleasure to watch.

Other Comments by Spock

65. Comment #79253 by Zzyx1170 on October 16, 2007 at 3:22 pm

I placed an mp3 of this debate on RapidShare at:
http://rapidshare.com/files/63064880/Christopher-Hitchens-Debates-Alister-McGrath.mp3

Other Comments by Zzyx1170

66. Comment #79254 by phasmagigas on October 16, 2007 at 3:26 pm

Donald.

Also gives an origin of the term "scapegoat" which I had not heard before.

if im not mistaken there are some cultures (i thik in east asia) that still do this, one with an oxen or similar animal and one god fobid with a monkey that they crucify and parade it alive through the village absorbing the sins. the oxen is quickly dispatched thankfully but im not sure about that poor primate. religion poisons most things.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

67. Comment #79256 by phasmagigas on October 16, 2007 at 3:28 pm

AM on atheism: wishful thinking. what a prat.

hes suggesting it takes away limits and creates nihilism, not many drug taking, homosexual, chocolate eating christians out there eh??

wishful thinking, we die and thats it, no justice either, what a prat.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

68. Comment #79259 by kaiserkriss on October 16, 2007 at 3:34 pm

Well done Hitch, as for McGrath, sorry, I can only take so much animated Monty Python action with out the sarcasm and satire in one go.

Had I not heard of McGrath before, and what he stands for, I might have been able to see this presentation as a poor interpretation of Eric Idle and the boys...jcw

Other Comments by kaiserkriss

69. Comment #79260 by eXcommunicate on October 16, 2007 at 3:35 pm

McGrath = drawn and quartered

Other Comments by eXcommunicate

70. Comment #79263 by jayalenik on October 16, 2007 at 3:51 pm

Thanks johnny o Knowing hitch i should have guessed

Other Comments by jayalenik

71. Comment #79264 by TheHardProblem on October 16, 2007 at 3:52 pm

Hitchens, explaining his attraction to continue the debate from the podium instead of sitting down:
"If I can't be erect, at least I can be upright."

Other Comments by TheHardProblem

72. Comment #79265 by mr harry on October 16, 2007 at 3:54 pm

I very much wanted to attend this event, but it started at 5:15... what are those of us that work until 5 supposed to do?

Other Comments by mr harry

73. Comment #79266 by RickM on October 16, 2007 at 3:55 pm

McGrath searches the mishmash of Christian mythology and tries to make sense of it; he fails. He never really addresses Hitchens' points and simply babbles on (embarrassingly).

Other Comments by RickM

74. Comment #79267 by Tyler Durden on October 16, 2007 at 3:56 pm

Superb opening salvo from Hitch, so glad he's on our side :-)

His point is well made with regard to that fact that: "if we knew now what we knew then" there would be no religion - unfortunately too many people have invested their time, money, children (and well-paying careers) into their religion of choice, it might be here for some time!

I would hate to have McGrath speaking on my behalf - when does he actually make a decent, pertinent point?!?!? The god-heads deserve him.

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

75. Comment #79268 by Russell Blackford on October 16, 2007 at 4:06 pm

I look forward to watching this, but it's an obvious mismatch. I don't have the low regard for McGrath that some of you do - he seems like a moderate and intelligent man who may, for all I know, come across well in a lecture theatre or over a cup of tea or if he's writing about theological niceties in an academic journal. However, he is simply not a rough-and-tumble public performer in the way that Hitchens is. He's too gentle and too oddly-mannered (and, strangely, too honest ... in his fashion). Hitchens would dominate against him in a live debate on any topic.

To make it a contest, the theists would need to put up someone meaner, nastier, more aggressive, less introspective, less odd, and ... let's face it ... less scrupulous than McGrath. It could be someone with less actual intellect. To avoid a libel suit, I won't name names, but you can all think of people like that on the theist team.

Edit: I actually think I'd do better for the theist side than some of these people. I'd pound away at the fine-tuning argument - I know enough physics to study up the facts and dazzle an audience with them. I wonder why the godly never try that tactic. "Well, Mr Hitchens, what's your contrived explanation for the fact that Planck's constant is just right? What about the amount of dark matter in the universe? And on and on it goes. Isn't the most obvious explanation that this universe has been fine-tuned by intelligence? It seems a bit desperate postulating an infinite number of universes just to avoid the obvious answer. And don't give me that stuff about ultimate 747s; the intelligence concerned may not be anything like a human brain, which had to evolve over time. In fact, how do you know conscious intelligence isn't the ultimate reality? It sure feels that way, doesn't it? After all, we have no satisfactory explanation for how conscious intelligence could supervene on material events, or how it could come into existence if it wasn't built into the universe from the start. The whole field of philosophy of mind is in disarray trying to deal with this. Blah, blah, blah." Admittedly, I'd end up making an argument more for some kind of idealist deism than for theism, but even that would be worth doing for a bit of fun. Someone should attempt this.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

76. Comment #79269 by DPR on October 16, 2007 at 4:12 pm

Hitchens definitely won. i just wish he went after mcgrath harder on the bible. mcgrath's excuse for the awful things in it is that "he has a different interpretation then hitchens". some parts of the bible are open for many different interpretations, but some things clearly aren't. how the heck can someone interpret some of the awful things in the bible wrong?also mcgrath i think said something weird about how the crazy stuff in the old testament was okay because of the new testament and jesus... well tell that to the people who were affected by gods supposed love of bblood and destruction (in most causes these people didn't exist though :)= example noah's ark)... i wish christopher would've went wild with this. he still easily won the debate though. McGrath seems to be an easy guy to debate if you're somewhat intelligent.

Other Comments by DPR

77. Comment #79271 by Bonzai on October 16, 2007 at 4:25 pm

Russell Blackford,

To make it a contest, the theists would need to put up someone meaner, nastier, more aggressive, less introspective, less odd, and ... let's face it ... less scrupulous than McGrath.It could be someone with less actual intellect..

I nominate McGarth's,--and Dawkins',--Oxford colleague John Lennox. I don't know if you can say that he has less intellect than McGrath, but he came across as an aggressive religious hustler and not at all ashamed to exploit cheap rhetorics in his debate with Dawkins.

Other Comments by Bonzai

78. Comment #79275 by Frankus1122 on October 16, 2007 at 4:43 pm

Zero, your "monsterously long url"
has been changed to:
http://tinyurl.com/ytf46q
The site: http://tinyurl.com turns your 'monster' into... well, a tiny url.
It's off topic but perhaps helpful -especially if you need to give someone a link in print. Web based links aren't such a problem.

Other Comments by Frankus1122

79. Comment #79278 by Quine on October 16, 2007 at 5:00 pm

Re: Comment #79268 by Russell Blackford

I nominate Michael Farris of Patrick Henry College, although, if we could get Fr. Guido Sarducci they would pay to put it on cable.

Other Comments by Quine

80. Comment #79279 by Rtambree on October 16, 2007 at 5:14 pm

Imagine being a student of McGrath's at Oxford and having to wade through his incessant inane drivel every day for years on end.

If just one hour of his vacuous waffle induces headaches, imagine entire semesters. What lecture notes could one take?

Other Comments by Rtambree

81. Comment #79280 by Shaker on October 16, 2007 at 5:16 pm

Hell's teeth ... when that man (I refer, of course, to Hitchens) is on form, he's unsurpassable. Amazing.

Of McGrath I shall forbear to say more, since whatever can be said, has been said, and extra comment would be akin to kicking a cripple.

Other Comments by Shaker

82. Comment #79281 by BAEOZ on October 16, 2007 at 5:20 pm

Russell Blackford:

"Well, Mr Hitchens, what's your contrived explanation for the fact that Planck's constant is just right? What about the amount of dark matter in the universe?....

Rhetorically good, but I'd never thought you'd argue that because we're ignorant that means god exists....;)
By the way, isn't the fine tuning argument defeated by the understanding that most universal constants are only units of measurement and the few that really are constant have to be that way because of the breaking of symmetry of a universe with 3 dimensions of space and 1 of time? That of course can for part of deism I suppose.....

Other Comments by BAEOZ

83. Comment #79282 by sentient on October 16, 2007 at 5:25 pm

I always get annoyed when religious apologists distance themselves from the violence done in the name of religion by referring to the perpetrators as extremists acting on the fringe. So, I loved the following question from a member of the audience:-

"god has ordered many acts of violence especially in the old testament. Is god on the fringe of his own religion?"

McGrath's reply was particularly weak and rambling and ended with
"...engagement of the scripture is dynamic and ongoing"

In other words, you can interpret the bible any way which fits your point of view!

Other Comments by sentient

84. Comment #79283 by Jack Rawlinson on October 16, 2007 at 5:36 pm

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

Of course, no good reason whatsoever why it shouldn't apply to people too, if they promulgate ridiculous ideas.

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

85. Comment #79284 by Nick Good on October 16, 2007 at 5:37 pm

Alistaire Mc Grath's clearly a terribly nice and decent fellow. But Christopher Hitchens didn't let that waiver him, nor was he lulled by Mc Grath's soporific, Anglican vicar, cucumber sandwiches and tea on the lawn, approach.

The Hitch shone a rather bright light onto those bland platitudes.

Other Comments by Nick Good

86. Comment #79285 by coretemprising on October 16, 2007 at 5:44 pm

logicel wrote:

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.

Thanks for the tip, and yes, I watched the Dennett speech, although I was doing something else at the same time so I think I missed a lot of it. But it explains so much, doesn't it? I will have to revisit.

It's interesting to me, however, that you see McGrath as childlike, because that never ocurred to me. In fact, I went back to have another look after reading your post, wondering what I might have missed. But no, I have to disagree. I think he seems ghastly, ghoul-like, old. But more than that he just doesn't seem real. It is as though he's an actor playing a part, but this is a very very bad actor! You can tell he's acting and look forward to the point at which he sheds the persona and gets real. I have to wonder if he's like this in a personal context. Can you imagine? Yikes! Anyway, the issue of different perceptions is also interesting.

Now some people don't see the point of musings about mannerisms and such, and so then you said:

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.

Now in this I agree with you completely. And I don't think that pointing out freaky weird mannerisms is an ad hominem. The delivery is part of the message, even if only indirectly. Look at all the people that have commented about it--it made an impact. And it's not a cultural thing, is it? Do all Irish men act like he does? No, just kidding. But I tell you I have to wonder if all the mind-bending he's surely had to do to get to where he is today intellectually isn't part of the reason. How can you act normally if your thinking is so abnormal? This is one for the psychologists.

Other Comments by coretemprising

87. Comment #79286 by RainDear on October 16, 2007 at 5:52 pm

My Goodness. There it is, and perhaps we'll just have to accept it. McGrath and his kind simply seem to be almost another species from me, and probably from most of the people posting a comment here. Apparently he's very happy with his own eloquence. Clarity and reason are for the mere mortals and not needed by the ones in touch with the divine.

But to a sane person not sharing his particular diet of hallusinogenics, it is like listening to a drunk friend at a party. Never answering to any question actually posed. Not able to come up with two consequtive sentences that would actually make any sense together. No logical connection to any other reality but his own solipsism. Like a trained politician, he never replies the question he's asked, but mumbles about something that at least to him sounds smart, scientific and educated. It's a tribute to muddiness.

In private conversations, most of my religious friends explain their faith in a very solipsistic manner. They just seem to have this personal FEELING about God's existence. Well, although it's hardly an argument, they are entitled to their feelings. But this McGrath actually goes to publish a book using another professor's name and fame to market it. Then he attends public debates with serious people, claiming to offer counter arguments, while the sane but polite audience painfully tries to connect the dots to make some sense of his thoughts.

Actually, McGrath only argues within his own mind. He wants to argue somehow logically something that is based on his own warm fuzzy feelings, his own desperate need to have faith in something supernatural. And of course, he can't. He keeps bending backwards, sucking up to the audience by praising the value of his opponent's remarks, and then moves on to talk about something else. Like any spin doctor.

He paints himself in an intellectual corner, but clearly it's no problem for him. He's the other species, the muddy ones, who always prefer blurry and nebulous explanations over clear and simple ones, a fancy old quote to a new logical argument, and a blunt knife to Occam's razor.

Other Comments by RainDear

88. Comment #79288 by BeyondBelief on October 16, 2007 at 6:00 pm

I'm in the middle of McGrath's opening... where he cautions us against the danger of "worldviews" animating us to "do things."

Heaven forfend!! If he can give us one piece of advice, is it going to be that we should hold and cultivate worldviews that don't animate us? Ee's a bloomin' genius, ee is!!

Other Comments by BeyondBelief

89. Comment #79289 by Elentar on October 16, 2007 at 6:02 pm

I caught McGrath here and on Big Ideas on TV Ontario, talking about The God Delusion. He was incredibly evasive on both occasions--in fact, on TVO, he didn't even address Dawkins' main argument (the Ultimate 747, an expansion on Russell's teapot), and here he kept wasting time and wandering off on tangents.

McGrath practices what I call bait-and-switch Deism: fall back to non-supernatural arguments, try to get people to sign on to those, and then advance back to the personal God when you think the coast is clear. Hitchens stuck to his point, and McGrath avoided it like the plague.

But worst of all, McGrath is a post-modernist, a school I consider utterly morally and intellectually bankrupt and completely discredited. Post-modernism is becoming rather fashionable amongst believers nowadays, owing to its position of moral and epistemological relativism. The moral relativism is useful for their God vs. nihlism false dichotomy, while the epistemological relativism is useful in their wars on science.

Other Comments by Elentar

90. Comment #79290 by Russell Blackford on October 16, 2007 at 6:11 pm

BAEOZ, I think that the proper way of answering the fine-tuning argument is to look at how it is parasitic on our cognitive biases such as our comfort with answers that refer to intelligent agency. But it would be quite difficult to do that in a live debate; it requires raising some points that are unfamiliar to most people.

Maybe a reference to Camus would help - at some level, we (or many people) expect the universe to love and suffer like us. We are biased towards this idea, have a tendency not to see the contrivance in particular versions of it, have a tendency to see any answer to ultimate questions as contrived unless it ends up with that kind of answer. It's a great thing for theists and deists to play on and a quite difficult thing to expose and challenge

I wonder how Hitchens would handle it. Perhaps just "God of the gaps." But that's not terribly satisfactory.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

91. Comment #79291 by BAEOZ on October 16, 2007 at 6:24 pm

Thanks Russell. I think that was sort of what I was getting at, but from a different angle. The moment someone says fine tuning I think of the sentient puddle. The point being that we see fine tuning as designed for us, but instead, we were "designed" by fine tunning (or the symetry of 4 dimensional universe) or whatever Victor Stenger thinks :)
Reminds me of people who say proof of god is that love exists in the universe! Fuck me, that's only proof that we describe various neurological processes by a common idea isn't it?

Other Comments by BAEOZ

92. Comment #79292 by Frankus1122 on October 16, 2007 at 6:31 pm

McGrath is a fart.
An insubstantial bad smelling vapour coming from the rotten and shitty ideas of the bowels of the body of the church.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: I don't get it. I don't understand what the religious are saying. I listen hard and I sort of get a point but it is always unclear; fuzzy. Are they saying this? Or are they saying that?
On the other hand, how can one fail to understand the clear and lucid arguments put forth by Hitchens or Harris or Dawkins?
Clarity vs. Obfuscation.
"Have faith in the preserving alive of the soul." Romans 10:39
What the fuck does that mean?

Other Comments by Frankus1122

93. Comment #79293 by Circumspect on October 16, 2007 at 6:36 pm

About McGrath: What is this dumb-ass talking about? He's like nails on a chalkboard. Are all Irishmen of his generation this twisted and warped by religion? Hitch is good, as usual, but he is repeating himself a lot now days -- maybe unavoidable since his primary assertions are hard to improve upon.

Other Comments by Circumspect

94. Comment #79294 by eXcommunicate on October 16, 2007 at 6:38 pm

I think Hitch (and Dawkins) repeats himself a lot nowadays because the arguments they have to refute are simply the same old arguments over and over.

Other Comments by eXcommunicate

95. Comment #79298 by Smashman42 on October 16, 2007 at 6:51 pm

Can't view it, it fails pretty quickly on the google vid page & the download of the actual file crashes too.

Is it available somewhere as an AVI to download? preferably via something fault tolerant like torrents?


Edit: I missed Zzyx1170's MP3 download link, it worked cheers

Other Comments by Smashman42

96. Comment #79299 by DrShell on October 16, 2007 at 7:01 pm

I'm still trying to wrap my brain around the resurrection as a "historical event" like the crossing of the Rubicon. Did he really argue that the resurrection ITSELF isn't important, just the discussion of what it means? That people literally witnessed it and instead of going "OMGWTF?!!?" just mused, "Huh, I wonder what that MEANS?"

That's rather a large question he just begged off, isn't it?

Other Comments by DrShell

97. Comment #79300 by FirstDark on October 16, 2007 at 7:07 pm

9. 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 very bizarre interpretation indeed!

"Atheists appeared to be in the minority, and the crowd was clearly rooting for McGrath" ??

My hearing must be fluctuating because I could have sworn the audience seemed either asleep or bored throughout the majority of McGrath's presentation.

Clearly, just as Hitchens states near the end, McGrath loses this round. In fact, he didn't have a chance to begin with.

+ On a side note, Hitchens mistakenly attributes "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" to Satanism when it is actually a Thelemic phrase. Common misconception.

Other Comments by FirstDark

98. Comment #79304 by Atticus_of_Amber on October 16, 2007 at 8:23 pm

Hitch: Someone once told me that I was trying to assassinate their character and I said, "No, your character committed suicide some time ago."

Hitch, you sir are a right bastard - and I salute you!

Other Comments by Atticus_of_Amber

99. Comment #79305 by alovrin on October 16, 2007 at 8:24 pm

McGrath has certainly improved on his act, from when he was confronted by RD's withering gaze in the IV for Root of all Evil?

Still his arguments/statements (call them what you will) mostly seem to be of the "I agree with you BUT..." variety. They add nothing to the debate, just apologism in full flight.

And his tortured Rubicon metaphor. SHeez he mangled history as well as the metaphor.
Caesar Augustus didnt cross the Rubicon till after the battle was won. His opponent foolishly decided crossed the narrow bridge and was slaughtered by Ceasar's numerically inferior force in this bottleneck. I dont know, it seems some will read anything into whatever, if they are desparate enough.

Other Comments by alovrin

100. Comment #79306 by Summer Seale on October 16, 2007 at 8:39 pm

Again, same apologies for religion by the same "debaters" who go up against our side.

I'd like to meet a single one who actually believes in the stuff that Hitchens, Dawkins, et al are refuting. They always go on about how it's a personal god for them etc.... They never actually address the issue. Ever. It's @#$ing moronic of them. If they don't believe the bible, then they should say so.

An issue that keeps being brought up is "What are you suggesting we replace religion with?" And much as our side does answer it, they never boil it down to one answer everyone can remember and understand.

Here's my hopefully memorable contribution to future debates for Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris et al:

"What are you suggesting we replace religion with?"

"The Truth."

Let them choke on it.

Other Comments by Summer Seale