1. Comment #430298 by DreamDevil on November 8, 2009 at 2:45 pm

This isn't a debate, it's a massacre!

Other Comments by DreamDevil

2. Comment #430300 by apikoros on November 8, 2009 at 2:57 pm

Favorite quote of the night:

"It's the strange thing about this church: it is obsessed with sex, absolutely obsessed. Now they will say, we with our permissive society and our rude jokes are obsessed -- no, we have a healthy attitude: we like it, it's fun, it's jolly. Because it's a primary impulse, it can be dangerous and dark and difficult. It's a bit like food in that respect, only even more exciting. The only people who are obsessed with food are anorexics and the morbidly obese, and that in erotic terms is the Catholic church in a nutshell."

Thanks, Stephen. An elegant analogy in the starkest (and truest) terms.

Other Comments by apikoros

3. Comment #430303 by theinquisitor on November 8, 2009 at 3:04 pm

The catholics dismissive attitude did as much to harm their position as Hitchens and Fry's arguments did. No disrespect to the quality of their arguments, but nothing can harm one's position as much as bald faced cowardice and deception.

I guess they know there's nothing they can possibly say in defense of these actions, so they ignored it and hoped no-one would notice. FAIL.

Other Comments by theinquisitor

4. Comment #430304 by sornord on November 8, 2009 at 3:05 pm

When the post-debate numbers were read I just shouted, "Yes!" with my fist pumping into the air. Just for a second it was like a football game...

Other Comments by sornord

5. Comment #430305 by Lithium_joe on November 8, 2009 at 3:20 pm

Woo-hoo! Been waiting to se the recording of this!!

Other Comments by Lithium_joe

6. Comment #430308 by ravish on November 8, 2009 at 3:28 pm

ehh, they could have massacred them a bit more I thought. It was too short as well.

Other Comments by ravish

7. Comment #430311 by kev_s on November 8, 2009 at 3:31 pm

"What are you for?!!"
This was wonderful stuff.

Other Comments by kev_s

8. Comment #430312 by Netsrak on November 8, 2009 at 3:37 pm

Oh yeah, that was awesome, Hitchins and Fry were on fire.

Other Comments by Netsrak

9. Comment #430313 by kylelocket on November 8, 2009 at 3:45 pm

This was fantastic, I almost felt bad for the catholics, they made such a pathetic showing that they never had a chance. It's almost a shame that they didn't have better points of view so that the debate would have been more difficult for hitchens and fry. I guess the nature of the catholic church makes it inherently difficult to defend.

Other Comments by kylelocket

10. Comment #430314 by jaytee_555 on November 8, 2009 at 3:47 pm

So much for the idea that trying to change people's mind on religious topics by argument is hopeless.

So much also, for the idea that agressive atheism is counter-productive.

It is heartwarming to see reason prevail over superstitious cant.

Other Comments by jaytee_555

11. Comment #430315 by RedMetalViolin on November 8, 2009 at 3:47 pm

Anyone notice the news bulletin at the bottom of the screen before Fry's speech, "Islamists in Somalia stone a man to death for adultery, but say they will spare his pregnant girlfriend until she gives birth"...
Fry and Hitchens vs Islamic leaders?

Other Comments by RedMetalViolin

12. Comment #430316 by Lithium_joe on November 8, 2009 at 3:53 pm

Incidentally, in the still on the fourth video, I can just see the back of my head.

The glowing square I'm holding is the phone I utterly failed to record this on.... ^^

Other Comments by Lithium_joe

13. Comment #430319 by Thurston on November 8, 2009 at 4:04 pm

This is a heavily edited version of a two and a quarter hour debate. The unedited version will probably surface soon enough.

Other Comments by Thurston

14. Comment #430320 by Bonzai on November 8, 2009 at 4:09 pm

Kick ass. I so enjoy seeing Anne Widdencombe squirmed.

Other Comments by Bonzai

15. Comment #430323 by MarcCountry on November 8, 2009 at 4:31 pm

Anne Widdencombe? I thought that was Terry Jones in drag, although I was basing that on voice, not appearance.

Other Comments by MarcCountry

16. Comment #430324 by Bonzai on November 8, 2009 at 4:32 pm

The most remarkable thing is the complete absence of much needed introspection on the part of the Catholics.

Other Comments by Bonzai

17. Comment #430325 by the great teapot on November 8, 2009 at 4:36 pm

Listening to Stephen Fry is always a pleasure, just one that is not often paid for by the misery of listening to Anne Widdencombe first.

Other Comments by the great teapot

18. Comment #430327 by toomanytribbles on November 8, 2009 at 4:43 pm

that was wonderful

Other Comments by toomanytribbles

19. Comment #430330 by flying goose on November 8, 2009 at 5:10 pm

The most remarkable thing is the complete absence of much needed introspection on the part of the Catholics.

worth repeating

Other Comments by flying goose

20. Comment #430331 by Alan C. on November 8, 2009 at 5:13 pm

Could the Catholics have picked two worse apologists than those two to make their case?
I don't think so, not so much a debate as a humiliating rout. :-)

Other Comments by Alan C.

21. Comment #430332 by Richard Dawkins on November 8, 2009 at 5:15 pm

She may be one of the nastiest people in British public life, but that is no reason to get her name wrong. She is Ann (no 'e') Widdecombe (no 'n').

Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

22. Comment #430333 by the great teapot on November 8, 2009 at 5:19 pm

I corrected my spelling to agree with the article at the top of the page. Don't blame us guv.

Other Comments by the great teapot

23. Comment #430334 by alabasterocean on November 8, 2009 at 5:25 pm

This is my "Sport", it's a 'game on' event!

Fry and Hitch make a efficient "bad cop - good cop" team.

This is the most fun I have had in weeks...

Other Comments by alabasterocean

24. Comment #430335 by the great teapot on November 8, 2009 at 5:25 pm

Sorry, did I say guv?
I meant our great leader.:)

Other Comments by the great teapot

25. Comment #430337 by TIKI AL on November 8, 2009 at 5:28 pm

Richard @ 21: "She may be one of the nastiest people in British public life,"

Nasty, yes, but is she the most dangerous woman in Britain today?

Other Comments by TIKI AL

26. Comment #430338 by elpopstardo on November 8, 2009 at 5:34 pm

Stephen Fry is a legend, Ive got goose bumps!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Other Comments by elpopstardo

27. Comment #430340 by AllanW on November 8, 2009 at 5:38 pm

19. Comment #430330 by flying goose on November 8, 2009 at 5:10 pm

The most remarkable thing is the complete absence of much needed introspection on the part of the Catholics.

It is a remarkable lack and not just demonstrated by the two Catholic protagonists in this debate. But I think you're casting much too genial a veil over what many now see as the basic problem for the Catholic church.

A lack of introspection may be your polite way of saying they should undertake a course of navel-gazing but I disagree. The most basic, urgent and necessary action they need to take is to accept fully, unconditionally and without stinting that institutional rape and child abuse was condoned, aided and covered-up for decades.

Nothing less than that frank and humble admission (and the sooner the better) is acceptable in order to start the process of restitution to the victims and for the church to begin to reorder itself. This first step is required because how else is anybody outside the church going to believe that they are able to express even the smallest moral utterance until they have addressed these most blatant and grievous wrongs? Any Catholic should feel the same.

Would you take any moral advice from any other body that had committed atrocities and yet still held itself out not just to be a moral, worthy and righteous institution but was trying to convince you that they were the ONLY ones who had the right answers to how to live a good life?

If the Roman Catholic church does not take this step it will condemn itself to permanent disgrace and ultimate degradation and slide into disuse. Rightly so in my opinion.

I'm not having a go at you FG but I really don't think that 'a period of introspection' will do the job that needs to be done.

edit;

I would however echo Fry's remarks that it's the institution itself that should be targetted not individuals unless there is evidence of their personal involvement in wrongdoing. The fact of being a Catholic should not in any way open somebody up to approbrium in itself.

Other Comments by AllanW

28. Comment #430342 by ridelo on November 8, 2009 at 5:43 pm

I specially liked it when in the 4th video (0:52) Stephen Fry suggested that the Church should restitute the money the bishop applauded.

Other Comments by ridelo

29. Comment #430343 by Alternative Carpark on November 8, 2009 at 6:05 pm

Intelligence squared really need to put out an audio file of the whole debate.

Start the petition!

Other Comments by Alternative Carpark

30. Comment #430345 by the archangel on November 8, 2009 at 6:07 pm

I was lucky to get a chance to talk to Christopher before this discussion. Asked him to sign my Bibles, he looked rather bemused until he realised it was his books that i wanted him to sign. Top bloke asked him if he'll ever be on QI and he said he was rather hurt that Stephen has never asked him. That would be so cool.

Debate was amazing. Catholic woman i was sitting next to had never heard of the Hitch before and she walked out after a while. :D

Other Comments by the archangel

31. Comment #430346 by the great teapot on November 8, 2009 at 6:07 pm

Stephen "The catholic church thought slavery was fine"
in the distant background ms widdecombe says well so did everyone at the time, Stephens response "Then what are you for"
Absolutely, what happened to the absolute morals argument.

it is like having a boxing match with 4 year olds.

Other Comments by the great teapot

32. Comment #430347 by JemyM on November 8, 2009 at 6:12 pm

I felt kinda sorry for John Onaiyekan. He seems like a good man in the wrong crowd.

Other Comments by JemyM

33. Comment #430348 by TIKI AL on November 8, 2009 at 6:12 pm

Who could argue against the 10 commandments?
...me.

"Honor your father and your mother, as the Lord your God commanded you, so that your days may be long and that it may go well with you in the land that the Lord your God is giving you." (wiki)

What if your father molested your sister and lit the cat on fire, your mother has beaten you senseless on numerous occasions after returning home from the Motel 6 with the milkman, and both of them voted for Bush twice?

Isn't it wrong for the Lord to try to bribe us into respecting these scumbags?

There should be a set of 10 commandments for the Lord to follow.

Anyone?

Other Comments by TIKI AL

34. Comment #430349 by Neuro on November 8, 2009 at 6:16 pm

Wow! I was shocked (yet ecstatic) by how many people for 'For' position lost. That was a shit ton!

Other Comments by Neuro

35. Comment #430350 by biolehrer_1985 on November 8, 2009 at 6:17 pm

268 : 1876! "Heureka!"

...this is not bad - for the beginning! ;)

Other Comments by biolehrer_1985

36. Comment #430351 by Sally Luxmoore on November 8, 2009 at 6:26 pm

Comment #430316 by Lithium_joe

Hey - but thanks for trying, anyway.

Many of those shout-at-the-screen moments.
One of my personal favourite quotes:
Hitch describing the Catholic hierarchy as "a clutch of hysterical sinister virgins". Just perfect.

This debate was a form of catharsis. The look on Stephen Fry's face as the end spoke volumes.

- And BBC World has an audience of about 70 million. I don't think we've heard the last of this.

Edit: This was quite considerably shortened, I believe. Anyone know what was left out?

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

37. Comment #430352 by Inside centre on November 8, 2009 at 6:31 pm

Ann Widecombe... so strongly against condoms, yet her conversational style is of itself a form of contraception.

Other Comments by Inside centre

38. Comment #430353 by 412E9400FA59454 on November 8, 2009 at 6:31 pm

Audio only for those of us who like to listen on the go. http://drop.io/by1betx

Other Comments by 412E9400FA59454

39. Comment #430355 by artisfact on November 8, 2009 at 6:48 pm

Widdecombe's voice is the stuff of boarding school nightmares.

Other Comments by artisfact

40. Comment #430356 by Steve Zara on November 8, 2009 at 7:02 pm

The absurdity and arrogance of Ann Widdecombe's relgioous position needs to be emphasised. It is something that has fascinated me for years.

She used to be a member of the Church of England. But she objected to the ordination of women, and as a result, converted to Catholicism.

The psychological and theological issues are just mind-blowing.

The Church of England has a council which meets to decide matters of theology and consequent doctrine. This Synod, as it is called, supposedly consists of experts in these matters. They debate matters over years; decades even.

But Ann Widdecombe knows God's will better than these experts. So much so that she knows he can't stand the idea of women priests and bishops. Quite how she is so sure of God's will is a mystery. Why she feels she knows more about theology than the Synod is a mystery. The arrogance is astonishing.

Also, there is something just so bizarre about wanting consumer choice regarding which version of Christianity will oppress you the most, especially when what you are choosing from is different versions of supposed routes to ultimate truth. Clearly the truths aren't that ultimate if you can pick and choose.

If Ann really wanted freedom to believe what she wanted about God's attitude to women, she could have picked one of the less dogmatic versions of Christianity that allow for more personal interpretation, such as Methodism. But no, she has to go for Catholicism.

If the next pope is more liberal, I wonder what she will do.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

41. Comment #430357 by Sally Luxmoore on November 8, 2009 at 7:11 pm

You're right (as so often) Steve. She does exert a sort of horrible fascination, partly because of the apparent self-loathing that she exhibits. Mind you, I don't think she restricts her loathing to herself. Anyone less full of the milk of human kindness is hard to imagine.

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

42. Comment #430358 by LaurieB on November 8, 2009 at 7:17 pm

Steve Zara

If the next pope is more liberal she could always consider converting to Islam. No shortage of misogyny there.

Other Comments by LaurieB

43. Comment #430361 by Steve Zara on November 8, 2009 at 7:33 pm

All theism is egotistical, because it is founded on the belief that humans have some sort of special connection with the creator of the universe. Some versions of theism are particularly egotistical, such as Pentecostalism which emphasises direct personal experience of God. But, even more egotistical than that is Widdecombism, which rates personal experience and opinions of God above that of all others in whatever Christian tradition you happen to be in.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

44. Comment #430362 by EoghainOKeeffe on November 8, 2009 at 7:36 pm

That was fantastic. As many times as I hear Christopher Hitchens, I never get tired of his enthusiasm, insight and intelligence. And Stephen Fry is always a joy to listen to.

I wasn't surprised by the vote at the end. It was fairly clear, by the closing statements, who had the stronger side in the argument. Fry and Hitchens both summed up their reasons for their stance extremely well. The Archbishop and Ann Widdecombe gave closing statements that were filled with bluster and a prickly sort of self-defense.

I can't wait to hear the whole debate. Could somebody please post a link if they come across it?

Other Comments by EoghainOKeeffe

45. Comment #430363 by the great teapot on November 8, 2009 at 7:38 pm

Widdecombism, lol.
So long as she keeps those foreign monkeys out of England she is alright by me.
(what a toss..,)

Other Comments by the great teapot

46. Comment #430364 by Mike D on November 8, 2009 at 7:38 pm

That was such a lop-sided smackdown, I almost felt sorry for the Archbishop and the MP....almost. This really made my Sunday. I can't wait to show it to my Catholic mother-in-law. Wish we had shows like that in the States.

Other Comments by Mike D

47. Comment #430365 by the great teapot on November 8, 2009 at 7:41 pm

I almost felt sorry for the MP.
That is like saying I almost felt sorry for Mt St Helens

Other Comments by the great teapot

48. Comment #430367 by Sally Luxmoore on November 8, 2009 at 7:54 pm

Shocking duplicitousness:

Chair: "Did Jesus Christ himself actually say anything about homosexuality?"
Stephen Fry: "No".
Archbishop: "That is the wrong question". --WHAT ?!


Compare with what JC (allegedly) DID say on the fate of anyone who harmed a child:
King James Version-
"It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones."

But 'harping on about' child rape is just tiresome to this horribly hypocritical pair. You almost get the impression that if the rapists had used condoms, only then would they earn the genuine condemnation of their fellow catholics.

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

49. Comment #430368 by Muetze on November 8, 2009 at 7:55 pm

This was a phantastic display of debating skills. Hitchens and Fry didn't let their opponents get away with anything! I have hardly seen anybody be this quick-witted in picking up on the constant shifting of goal-posts. Brilliant! I think I can finally lay to rest that memory of the Shermer-Hovind debate, which still haunted me.

Other Comments by Muetze

50. Comment #430369 by Eshto on November 8, 2009 at 7:58 pm

O_o

WOW. Hitchens wasted no time at all with that opening statement.

And as a "faggot" myself, I really appreciate that he brought up Stephen Fry's... er... faggotry, right off the bat. When that goofball right before him was going on and on about how loving and inclusive the Church is, all I could think about was the Catholic church in Maine funding the repeal of the marriage equality law last Tuesday. And after the legislature had bent over backwards to make churches exempt from the law. Bastards.

Other Comments by Eshto