1. Comment #362239 by Gamma ut on April 8, 2009 at 8:50 pm

Gotta love the CH! He can bogart me anytime :)

Other Comments by Gamma ut

2. Comment #362240 by blueollie on April 8, 2009 at 8:59 pm

Blackwell's basic ignorance is appalling.

Other Comments by blueollie

3. Comment #362241 by chuckgoecke on April 8, 2009 at 9:03 pm

The reason religion is loosing is glaringly obvious to anyone watching this. Hitch is superb!

Other Comments by chuckgoecke

4. Comment #362242 by Russell Blackford on April 8, 2009 at 9:17 pm

lol, I hope no one will ever confuse me with this guy. "Kenneth" is actually my middle name, and I've had people confuse the names "Blackwell" and "Blackford" in the past. Seeing this was just a bit freaky for a second.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

5. Comment #362244 by Ned Flanders on April 8, 2009 at 9:19 pm

Oh ok, these must be the same Christian values that are holding the world back in stem cell research, gay rights, aids prevention, evolution in schools,...

Not much to be proud of if USA is truly built on this moral foundation.

Other Comments by Ned Flanders

6. Comment #362246 by Neuro on April 8, 2009 at 9:35 pm

I've also found that many "believers" are skeptical of aspects in religion. However, I think they ultimately believe in a "higher power" but just not the rules of organized religion. It is more of a "I should be 'X', therefore I am 'X'". You ask them, do you go to church every Sunday? "No" "You are going to hell, then, are you not?" "Well.." then they typically do not finish or say something like, "You do not need to go to Church to be a good [Christian]".

Think independently, is what I say!

Other Comments by Neuro

7. Comment #362249 by Robert Maynard on April 8, 2009 at 9:44 pm

Wow, Chris Matthews lost his hair really fast. :P

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

8. Comment #362251 by dniete97 on April 8, 2009 at 9:54 pm

Ah, he did a masterful job of wrapping it all up at the end. So glad he was able to get the last word in as well. Always nice when that happens.

Other Comments by dniete97

9. Comment #362252 by happyfinesad on April 8, 2009 at 10:07 pm

"Ah, he did a masterful job of wrapping it all up at the end. So glad he was able to get the last word in as well. Always nice when that happens."

As he deserved to get the last word in, considering most of the time Blackwell wouldn't let Hitchens get a word in edgewise.

[edit - I'm a fool and used the wrong name. =D]

Other Comments by happyfinesad

10. Comment #362256 by Spinoza on April 8, 2009 at 10:39 pm

The poor guy shouldn't be going up against someone like Hitch... It's like that time Dawkins talked to Bill O'Reilly.

Imagine a poodle fighting a T.Rex... even if the poodle puts up a good fight, there's just no comparison.

I really honestly feel bad when people who aren't well read try to argue these things... the guy started stuttering because he couldn't find the words or witty anecdotes to counter Hitchens' vast repertoire.

I like to see Hitchens when he's actually challenged. (and I don't mean by rhetoricians like D'Souza, I mean by a well-spoken, well-read, reasonable human being who happens to hold an opposing viewpoint...)

Other Comments by Spinoza

11. Comment #362258 by RightWingAtheist on April 8, 2009 at 10:44 pm

Is there nothing for which the christians will not try to credit Jesus£ He invented capitalism, socialism, not killing people, morality (though his core message was that you didn't have to be moral, and in fact could not), and maybe pizza. No wait, he didn't INVENT pizza, he WAS the first pizza. Cheesus Christ on a cracker crust.

Other Comments by RightWingAtheist

12. Comment #362259 by blitz442 on April 8, 2009 at 10:48 pm

10. Comment #362256 by Spinoza

Overall I agree but Blackwell did have decent point about religion being pronounced dead 25-30 years ago then bounding back. Hitchens intitial "show me one person who said this" retort was weak, but his later description of why today's skepticism is different than that of 25 years ago was better.

I liked the part where Blackwell tried to credit capitalism to Christianity (there is a barely anything in the Bible to inform us of sound economic policies); I heard Hitch snicker and wish that he could have replied.

Also, I don't think that Dawkins did that well against O'Reilly. Bill wouldn't let him talk, so Dawkins didn't come across as sharp as he usually does. Probably was a mistake to even go on his show.

Other Comments by blitz442

13. Comment #362261 by Koreman on April 8, 2009 at 10:56 pm

Nice. Some of those people who are proud that the US was built on judea-christian principles seem to forget what those religious principles exactly were back then. Those principles supported looting, genocide, slavery, harsh corporal punishments, witch hunting and racism. Something to be very proud of indeed.

Other Comments by Koreman

14. Comment #362266 by Rodger T on April 8, 2009 at 11:42 pm

Also, I don't think that Dawkins did that well against O'Reilly. Bill wouldn't let him talk, so Dawkins didn't come across as sharp as he usually does. Probably was a mistake to even go on his show.

Yeah,I agree, I don`t know why anybody would go on O`Reilly`s show, all that ever happens is that Bill talks over the top of every guest and shouts down those he disagrees with, if being a fuckwit was an olympic sport Billy O would be the perennial gold medallist.


Christopher Hitchens interesting as always.Just begun God is not great, enjoying every page so far.

Other Comments by Rodger T

15. Comment #362268 by Philip1978 on April 8, 2009 at 11:51 pm

It is so glaringly obvious that facts and evidence mean nothing to religious people like Mr Blackwell.

The Hitch was superb as per usual - Blackwell should learn his history as well as Christopher has if he is ever going to be able to sound more convincing than that.

I have to hand it to Diacanu when he said they want it all - Blackwell wants it all to be Christian, he needs it to be Christian - he even goes so far as to fudge around with historical facts to make it that way. These people do NOT want evidence, they do not want facts - they want people to be stupid and ignorant of even the most basic things.

See how Blackwell was talking about how moral and wonderful Christianity is and completely ignores any other faith than his own - its all for HIM, its all HIS religion - that is the only thing that matters.

It doesn't matter, as Christopher pointed out, that there is fear, death, sadism etc - No it MUST be Christian, when it is all Christian then it will be perfect.

Bollocks!

Well done Christopher, good work!

Other Comments by Philip1978

16. Comment #362286 by Lord Osis on April 9, 2009 at 1:58 am

CH vs theotard (another one)

Oh no - I'm getting beaten - what shall I say next? - I know - giggle giggle giggle - that'll get him

same old story

Other Comments by Lord Osis

17. Comment #362288 by bluesky on April 9, 2009 at 2:08 am

Blackwell also used that tired old ploy, beloved of intellectual lightweights and those who know they've lost the argument, of constantly giggling whenever Hitch was speaking.

The aim, I think, is to try and make the viewer believe that the other person is making such a ridiculous comment that it's not worth taking seriously. Unfortunately for Blackwell, in this case it made him look cringe-makingly juvenile.

Almost felt sorry for him. Almost...

Other Comments by bluesky

18. Comment #362292 by bendigeidfran on April 9, 2009 at 2:23 am

Hitch vs William Lane Craig was April 4th. Now there's a much more impressive liar. Anyone know how that one went?

Other Comments by bendigeidfran

19. Comment #362297 by Kiwi on April 9, 2009 at 2:47 am

Notice Hitchens said "crisis FOR faith" not OF faith. The interviewer turned it into "crisis OF faith". Hitchens suggesting people consider faith as an object/behaviour/meme rather than the usual woowoo "faith must be good".

Other Comments by Kiwi

20. Comment #362301 by Oystein Elgaroy on April 9, 2009 at 2:58 am

Comment #362292 by bendigeidfran

I found a review of the debate at

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=1230

Other Comments by Oystein Elgaroy

21. Comment #362306 by bendigeidfran on April 9, 2009 at 3:28 am

Comment #362301 by Oystein

Aaaagh! it's worse than I feared. Hitchens has debated too many half-wits, Lane Craig is very slick and slippery.

You should have emailed him the fine-tuning blog post!

Other Comments by bendigeidfran

22. Comment #362307 by Russell Blackford on April 9, 2009 at 3:32 am

Okay, that was pathetic. Blackwell was trying to defend the indefensible, at least the way he framed it. Hitchens was pretty devastating. But wtf is this "Family Research Council", anyway? Some right-wing front for something?

EDIT: Oh no, I just realised that I used the f-word in the above. I mean "framed".

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

23. Comment #362312 by Oystein Elgaroy on April 9, 2009 at 3:40 am

Comment #362306 by bendigeidfran

I don't think it would have made much of a difference, actually. I am sure Hitchens knows many of the scientific objections Craig's arguments since he has read Vic Stenger's book. At least I assume he has because he has written an introduction for the paperback edition.

Other Comments by Oystein Elgaroy

24. Comment #362313 by Steve Zara on April 9, 2009 at 3:43 am

Comment #362312 by Oystein Elgaroy

I am sure that Craig must know many of the scientific objections too. I suspect that debates like Hitchens vs. Craig end up not about truth, but about performance.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

25. Comment #362314 by bujin on April 9, 2009 at 3:48 am

You've got to find it amusing when a guy who has only been a citizen of the USA for a couple of years knows more about the constitution and the founding fathers than someone who has been an American all his life...

Other Comments by bujin

26. Comment #362316 by Oystein Elgaroy on April 9, 2009 at 3:54 am

Comment #362313 by Steve Zara

I very much agree. And in the case of Christian apologetics your statement applies to more than just the debates.

Other Comments by Oystein Elgaroy

27. Comment #362318 by Frankus1122 on April 9, 2009 at 4:04 am

4. Comment #362242 by Russell Blackford

The thought went through my head quickly:

"Is that our Kenneth Blackwell? No, wait a minute, he's Russell. Why would Hitchens debate with Russell Blackford? I should watch the video."

Other Comments by Frankus1122

28. Comment #362319 by Roger Stanyard on April 9, 2009 at 4:09 am

Russell asks

But wtf is this "Family Research Council", anyway? Some right-wing front for something?

Yep. It's a conservative and deeply politicised religious lobbying group founded by an arch fundie, James Dobson (Focus on the Family).

It claims to be for "family values" which, translated into English, means it's against everything that isn't wingnuttery - gays, liberalism, divorces, abortion, stem cell research, contraception, sex education, pornography, "activist" (i.e. non-Republican) judges, taxation, measures to prevent global warming, gambling...

It basically can't stand seperation of church and state. It's basically aiming for a theocracy.

It's also cretinist. It supports Intelligent design.

That says it!

Other Comments by Roger Stanyard

29. Comment #362320 by decius on April 9, 2009 at 4:23 am

Comment #362263 by Sarmatae1


Damn right, mate.

Other Comments by decius

30. Comment #362322 by Frankus1122 on April 9, 2009 at 4:25 am

The segment mirrored what appears on this site often: a religite making claims based on inaccurate information. They get the facts wrong.

I think about thought as a hierarchy. You begin with factual knowledge, then understanding or comprehension, analysis (comparing and contrasting ideas, ordering them, etc.), synthesis (reframing), and evaluation or judgement.

The conclusions that Blackwell makes are wrong because the very foundations of his thought are wrong.

Other Comments by Frankus1122

31. Comment #362324 by Russell Blackford on April 9, 2009 at 4:33 am

lol @ Frankus. Mate, I'm not sure I'd like the experience of debating Hitchens, though it would certainly be interesting. We'd need to identify something we actually disagree on, such as abortion - where I take a much more hard line pro-choice position than he seems to. It might actually get nasty, which might not be much fun with someone as aggressive as Hitchens can be.

A gentle, um, "discussion" with Richard sounds more appealing. We could find a number of specific things to disagree about, such as the importance of the Problem of Evil in the scheme of things. I'd still like to see more discussions like that, involving people with similar but by no means identical viewpoints, like Richard's discussion with Lawrence Krauss (I'm not saying I'd do as good a job as Krauss did, but I do think that discussions like that can be more illuminating than the gladiatorial debates that we've become used to).

Edit: And thanks for the info, Roger. That makes a lot of sense.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

32. Comment #362328 by God fearing Atheist on April 9, 2009 at 4:47 am

#362319 by Roger Stanyard

Ah - you mean the closest an atheist will ever get to seeing a firey pit fill of demons.

Other Comments by God fearing Atheist

33. Comment #362330 by Mark Jones on April 9, 2009 at 4:49 am

I think I'd rather see some debates with Lane Craig on RD.NET than people like Blackwell.

I agree with Steve Z that debates tend to show who is the better debater, but it is still instructive and useful to analyse LC's arguments in such debates to understand one's own position better. LC is probably the most 'successful' of the apologists (having shown a clean pair of heels to Carrier and The Hitch recently), so *needs* to be understood and countered.

It's always a good idea to understand where apologists have a *valid* argument too; and occasionally they do :-).

Other Comments by Mark Jones

34. Comment #362334 by bendigeidfran on April 9, 2009 at 4:59 am

Comment #362330 by Mark Jones

Here's LC vs Peter Atkins if you can stand any more billy craig....Atkins has an unfortunate bewildered blinking demeanour...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1Y6ev152BA&feature=PlayList&p=5F391F46CA9163AD&index=0&playnext=1

Other Comments by bendigeidfran

35. Comment #362337 by Mark Jones on April 9, 2009 at 5:06 am

Comment #362334 by bendigeidfran

Thanks for that bendi; I think I saw that a while ago, but I'm going to refresh my memory. I can stand LC a lot more than D'Souza!

Other Comments by Mark Jones

36. Comment #362340 by Muetze on April 9, 2009 at 5:13 am

The picture of Hitchens is just priceless. Could you imagine anybody looking more vicious?

Other Comments by Muetze

37. Comment #362345 by Jonathan Dore on April 9, 2009 at 5:42 am

Interesting to see how casually and unthinkingly Kenneth Blackwell elided "the pilgrims and the founding fathers", as if their theological opinions were indistinguishable. When someone begins a sentence with "America was founded on ...", whatever they then go on to say will indicate whether they're thinking of 1620 or 1776 as the date of that founding. Basically, the religious right look back to the pilgrims, secularists cling on to the founding fathers. Most of the binary oppositions in the US today -- republican v. democrat, red v. blue, coasts v. centre, religious v. secular -- can be reduced to an opposition between the 1620ers and the 1776ers.

Having said that, the 1620ers, who tend to be less well-informed (no surprise there), also tend to make this false equation between the beliefs of the pilgrims and the founding fathers. It strikes me that hammering home the point that these beliefs were not the same, as CH does, is probably among the most powerful ways of challenging 1620ers and getting them to engage their brains, because if there's one thing most Americans agree on, whatever their background and outlook, it's reverence for the founders.

Other Comments by Jonathan Dore

38. Comment #362348 by NewEnglandBob on April 9, 2009 at 5:48 am

The last 35 seconds of Hitch's summation was perfect.

Other Comments by NewEnglandBob

39. Comment #362372 by godless1 on April 9, 2009 at 6:42 am

Amused when the pious guest says america is founded on judeo-christian values. Thank God they aren't!

I guess the good man has never read the Old Testament? Indeed, heart-warming, loving, moral gems such as Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Amos & Exodus.

Other Comments by godless1

40. Comment #362376 by Hellene on April 9, 2009 at 6:50 am

History? Most Americans can't tell you which president is on the ten dollar bill.

Other Comments by Hellene

41. Comment #362377 by Francis Clarke on April 9, 2009 at 6:53 am

10. Comment #362256 by Spinoza on April 8, 2009 at 10:39 pm

Nice analogy, poodles being one of the most aggressive dogs that I've met, and that all T-Rexes are long dead and nothing but a pile of bones. Something dogs enjoy to chew and burry.

My pet Alsation and Dobermann are less bitey than the poodles I have met. Maybe they are annoyed about their silly haircuts.

Other Comments by Francis Clarke

42. Comment #362384 by Quetzalcoatl on April 9, 2009 at 7:25 am

Here's a discussion with Hitchens on a panel with FOUR theists that might be interesting:

http://www.tangle.com/view_video.php?viewkey=175ad626166c55fdb819

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

43. Comment #362398 by Tyler Durden on April 9, 2009 at 8:00 am

Quetz -

Interesting panel discussion, about halfway thru it at the moment. I feel for Hitch having to listen to the banal "arguments" put forth by the theists - we're heard them all before here on one thread or another.

At 32:40 the moderator says "Jesus conquered death" - such low standards for his supposed god.

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

44. Comment #362410 by Diacanu on April 9, 2009 at 8:34 am

Quetz-

Watching it right now.

Ugh, it's always the fucking Deist first cause argument and then "..therefore Jesus!!".

Other Comments by Diacanu

45. Comment #362414 by LWS on April 9, 2009 at 8:42 am

While it is fun to watch Hitchens spar with people who are obviously his intellectual inferiors (aren’t we all) for the comedy there is however a much more serious and sinister problem that he could address. It would be wonderful if Hitchens would start deconstructing the American psyche with regards to what is at the core of irrational fundamentalism. He delights in celebrating Jeffersonian ideals without seeming to focus on the problems inherent in the foundational myth that underlies and informs irrational American beliefs and that is Manifest Destiny.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_Destiny


Here is a link to a video of a most interesting TVO interview by Allan Gregg with Ronald Wright on the historian’s new book ‘What is America?’

http://www.tvo.org/TVO/WebObjects/TVO.woa?video?AGBonus_Full_20081205_0_RonaldWright

"America -- the world's only superpower, but how did it get there? In a provocative new book, Ronald Wright contends that right from its start as a frontier society, America has used militarism and religious extremism to expand and prosper. Wright is the bestselling author of "A Short History of Progress". His new book is called "What is America? A Short History of the New World Order".

Wright’s book should be required reading for all Americans.

Further on the subject of fundamentalism contributing to the dumbing down of Americans here is a link to an excellent NPR audio interview with Susan Jacoby:

http://www.wpr.org/BOOK/080406a.html

"Are Americans dumbing down instead of smartening up? Many surveys say yes. According to a 2006 National Geographic-Roper survey, nearly half of Americans between the ages of 18 and 24 don't think it's necessary to know the location of other countries in which important news is being made. In this hour of To the Best of Our Knowledge, Susan Jacoby joins us to talk about her book, "The Age of American Unreason." Also, we'll find out how the Internet is killing our culture."

Other Comments by LWS

46. Comment #362421 by Diacanu on April 9, 2009 at 9:06 am

Ho boy, now I'm up to the guy at the end blabbering on about "God is like this, and God is like that, and he cares, and blah blah..", to which Hitchens rightly chimes "so you know the mind of God then?", and the guy just ignores, and keeps spinning his little yarn.

*Groan* it's fucking hopeless...

Other Comments by Diacanu

47. Comment #362422 by Friend Giskard on April 9, 2009 at 9:09 am

This related news is slightly interesting. "God Is Not Great" may become a film.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i877cb25050675ce9e21719c401f3a17a

Other Comments by Friend Giskard

48. Comment #362424 by huzonfurst on April 9, 2009 at 9:12 am

Neither constant interrupting nor making faces are legitimate debating techniques, Blackwell - never mind trying to equate the Pilgrims with the Founders and the Declaration with the Constitution.

Other Comments by huzonfurst

49. Comment #362425 by harveydinio on April 9, 2009 at 9:17 am

This is my first post, so I am metaphorically no longer a virgin upon this site lol. I would just like to say hi to everyone and I am looking forward to some lively debate.

Anyway on to the video, Kenneth Blackwell seems completely uninformed on this subject, he doesn't even try to engage in a debate with Christopher Hitchens, he just keeps drumming on about how America was based upon "Judeo-Christian values" without showing a shred of evidence to back up his opinion. You could almost see the fear on his face when Christopher Hitchens was eviscerating his arguements. Kenneth Blackwell made me laugh when he was challenged by Christopher Hitchens to answer the question and he replied "uh uh uh uh no" lol. It just shows how inept of a speaker this man truely is, he never answers a straight question and just blabbered on inanely about "Judeo-Christian values" like if he repeats it enough that makes he says true.

I think Christopher Hitchens was great as always (if you cant tell i am a huge fan!) he is a fearsome debater and made his antagonist look like a deer in the headlights against him. I think it was suprising though that Christopher Hitchens never mentioned Thomas Paine, who a wrote a complete destruction of organised religion in his brillant book "The age of Reason". Who was the moral creator behind the declaration of independence.

Anyway it will be nice to hear from people.

Harveydinio

Other Comments by harveydinio

50. Comment #362428 by Tyler Durden on April 9, 2009 at 9:26 am

Quetz, Diacanu -

The children on the panel with Hitch believe in a Christian god that created the Universe, the Earth and everyone on it blah, blah, blah.

How the hell do they think anything we do here on planet Earth as lowly humans could possibly "hurt" this entity powerful enough to achieve such a fantastic feat of engineering?

Do they really believe their "god" is this weak and puny?

Other Comments by Tyler Durden