Conferences Series Events
SPACE   |   EVOLUTION   |   PHYSICS   |   SOCIAL SCIENCES   |   NATURAL SCIENCES   |   DNA   |   PSYCHOLOGY   |   BIOTECH   |   MEDICINE   |   ANTHROPOLOGY   |   ASTRONOMY
INTERNET   |   NEW MEDIA   |   START-UPS   |   PERSONAL TECHNOLOGY   |   WIRELESS   |   COMPUTING   |   ENGINEERING   |   CEOS
RELIGION   |   GAMING   |   FILM   |   FASHION   |   SEX   |   PHILOSOPHY   |   EDUCATION   |   HISTORY   |   ARTS   |   MUSIC   |   TRAVEL   |   PHOTOGRAPHY
Watch Now

Christopher Hitchens Debates Alister McGrath

122
Likes
0
Dislikes
RATE
165,469 Views

  • Info
  • Bio
  • Chapters
  • Highlights
  • Transcript
  • Download
  • More
Please or register to post a comment.

jokermtb Avatar
jokermtb
Posts: 2
Posted: 01.25.12, 09:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcosss
Looking back at this tiny piece of Hitchens a few weeks after his death, we need to ask ourselves who will carry on his work? Surely there must be another sharp wit that will challenge the religious with such eloquence & vigour.
Rest in peace Christopher, your intellect & wit will be sorely missed.
I agree - it's mildly depressing to think that there will be no new Hitchisms....
Marcosss Avatar
Marcosss
Posts: 7
Posted: 01.04.12, 03:11 PM
Looking back at this tiny piece of Hitchens a few weeks after his death, we need to ask ourselves who will carry on his work? Surely there must be another sharp wit that will challenge the religious with such eloquence & vigour.
Rest in peace Christopher, your intellect & wit will be sorely missed.
liyhann Avatar
liyhann
Posts: 2
Posted: 03.27.11, 07:18 PM
Sigh. What a refreshing exchange. No ad hominem assaults. Just lively, honest and respectful exchange of ideas. Big plus: My guy wins! But I do have to say, I learned an enormous amount about how to lose gracefully and with dignity from watching McGrath. I so respect him for taking on this challenge and if he were to eventually come to see a more secular side of things, I think he would be most welcome addition to the other "side." Kudos to Hitch who rocks!
srdahl0321 Avatar
srdahl0321
Posts: 2
Posted: 03.27.11, 05:51 PM
Mr. McGrath has been Hitchens' best opponent, and exceeds him in intelligence, although it is intelligence of a different flavor. Certainly, Mr. McGrath was not outmaneuvered by Hitchens on any point. He correctly illustrated that a belief or trust in "God" (amazing that they never discuss His basic nature) is voluntary. The Bible does not, incidentally, support the view of Hellfire. Only Satan is placed in the "everlasting lake of fire" and fire is always a destructive force, hence, Satan must be burnt away to his most infinitesimal degree. The concept of Sheol or Hades is A STATE, not a place. People and animals go to Sheol, where they have no memories or will or consciousness. The resurrected Lazarus is not asked to tell about the Heavens. Jesus, being dead three days, was nowhere. The resurrection was commonly understood as the only real future -- in a beautiful Paradise, such as was abandoned to Adam and Eve, who, in effect, chose to believe Satan's lies rather than God's warnings (the tree of Knowledge was the only thing they couldn't choose, hence their wills were free) Usually Mr. Hitchens outscintillates his adversaries. This time he paid Mr. McGrath a compliment I've heard in none other of his "debates" : "You know, you're quite a man". You needn't be a theologian...and so forth. I hope they do rejoin the discussion!
aaholmberg3rd Avatar
aaholmberg3rd
Posts: 2
Posted: 02.07.11, 08:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rocketdog
This is a way better debate than Hitchens / Sharpton. Some real sparks here, especially during the Q & A fun. I hope they do a few re-matches.
Did you know that "GOD" is "DOG" spelled backwards? "DOG" bless us all, EH!
RichieSauls Avatar
RichieSauls
Posts: 1
Posted: 01.03.11, 04:54 AM
If the Sharpton encounter can be called a debate at all.
kilaueo Avatar
kilaueo
Posts: 1
Posted: 10.13.10, 01:37 PM
Mr. Hitchens commands this debate, that is for sure. Unfortunately, on the basis of simple generalizations, rhetoric postulation, riding cliches, lengthy ramblings, and uncivilized interruptions. McGrath tries to step up the complexity of the debate (he actually can reference someone but other than himself), but falls short of convincing the audience in the allotted time. I guess audiences just want simple answers and simple generalizations, even at Georgetown. McGrath argues that things are more complex than they at first appear, which should be a point I would have expected from Hitchens. In essence it was the reverse of the Galileo debate - the church had the simple reading and Galileo added complexity. Now the heretic had the simple reading and the church representative called for a scientific evaluation. And with this Hitchens fails to live up to his own claims of objectivity and science - one that becomes apparent not just in logic but in demeanor as well. How different the positive reviews about Hitchen's conviction would have been, if a persuasive religious journalist would have been pitted against a drab molecular biologist.
Here are some of my many questions: Is Hitchen's really saying the Nazi party was more influenced by Catholic theology than Nietzsche's philosophy? And Marxist ideology more influenced by Russian authoritarianism than atheism? Grand claims indeed. In essence, Hitchens seeks the scapegoat in religion and thereby proves what McGrath concludes, that all world views are faith assertions - even atheism. Hitchen's never responds to what constitutes morality and where does it come from other than hedonistic pleasure (certainly Nazi guards would not have objected to this). On what basis does the judicial system then take its authority? On what basis can we evaluate history - especially the atrocities committed by the church of the middle ages?
I am certainly not defending McGrath - I can't agree with him and he couldn't convince me, but it would interesting to hear his arguments out.
Kudos to Mr. Hitchen for an entertaining and convincing performance, yet utterly simplistic and unscientific.
Kelly C Hitchcock Avatar
Kelly C Hitchcock
Posts: 32
Posted: 09.28.10, 06:41 PM
Hitchens is arguing that Christian theology is an evil paradigm. McGrath is arguing for believing. They are discussing two different topics. If there is a God and he's good, then you MUST defend belief the way McGrath does. If you don't believe in God, then religion is asinine superstition at best, a series of beastly philosophies at worst. McGrath is cherry picking. He's arguing that you can choose the parts of of Christianity which stand as moral now and ignore the parts which are evil. He's saying, "I believe in the good parts. People who believe in the 'bad' parts are wrong." How did he get to distinguish which parts of the Bible are good and which are bad? Theism is an asinine belief. If people were moved to moral acts because of a rabbit's foot, it would still be ridiculous.
cornell Avatar
cornell
Posts: 1
Posted: 09.18.10, 02:26 PM
Fine session. Continue to show these types of programming.
SalSanMar3 Avatar
SalSanMar3
Posts: 4
Posted: 08.27.10, 02:20 AM
Mr. McGrath totally dodges question five and why can't christians accept their beginnings were violent?
Advertisement
NO ADS + DOWNLOADS + HQ VIEWING
UPGRADE TO FORA.tv PLUS
Advertisement