Christopher Hitchens 1-0 Tony Blair

I guess I'll have to fork out the $3 to watch this thing.

I'm not, probably.

I mean no offense to fans of Mr. Hitchens, but the New Atheism movement is not all that new. Indeed, because these authors had limited literary success with a largely pseudo-scientific and pseudo-skeptical platform, they've decided to pass it off as a "new way of thinking" by redefining what is actually science. I have a feeling the only difference in this debate from ones repeatedly versed on the 'net is that it's done by a previous Prime Minister and a prominent literary figure. Not worth the three dollars, in my own opinion.

I agree with both Flynn and Hedges (both also anti-religious folks, actually) that these New Atheist guys have more in line with religious movements than they do with scientific credibility or true skeptical thinking. In my own mind, they are perpetuating a failed belief set like we see in threads like the homosexuality thread right by this one, where the church reflects that same sort of thinking back on other topics. Either these authors are opening the gates for that sort of thinking to be acceptable, or they are selective in their usage because it promotes their own viewpoint. I am personally hoping and believing that it's the latter. This is all however, besides the point.

I don't mean to support or defend religion. I am an agnostic. No doubt some good points are being made in that regard, but I felt driven to respond to the atheist aspect described by the Guardian article because I feel the article doesn't encapsulate the background of that man and his expertise enough. But I think these men and the New Atheist movement they encapsulate define and emphasize the problems present with general atheist ideologies and mainstream perception of what atheism is (which has mutated since the internet came about, it seems).

Good one. If you believe in a personal creator God, it does make him seem rather cruel and capricious - as were the Greek gods say. You can still be religious and not believe in the guy in the sky tho.

I think that is an admirable ideology. It's difficult to get involved in a discussion about religion without people trying to push you into one or the other side, because most people don't seem to realize that there isn't just two sides. I don't understand how people accept a belief system whole-heartedly. Dogma seems to me like willful ignorance. It's hard to ask questions without people questioning your motivation for doing so. In general, I haven't had much success in doing it anyway. So these days I'd rather watch a debate than participate in one about religion. I find the whole phenomenon of religion fascinating.

I think religion is a load of old bollocks. Those that 'aint Catholic anyway.

Aesop's fables. That's about it.

I think that's fine to look at it that way too. As long as the lesson is to be good. I'm sure Christianity has better spokesmen than Tony Blair.

My views on religion. If it makes you feel good, that’s great. However, don’t force your religion down my throat and don’t try and change my country/culture/environment to accommodate your religion.

If the religious types stick to that with me we will get on fine.

Nice it's on Youtube thanks!

Very good debate. Blair actually does well against Hitchens, a rarity. As opposed to this recent Debate where Hitchens could have twittered his way to domination...

i like how blair says (roughly) 'let it be known that i don't consider the leader of n.korea as a religious icon.."

funny thing, though tony: the leader of n.korea does. and his subjects pay dearly should their worship be deemed 'incredulous' or otherwise not fervent enough.

hitchens is a gift to the rational world.

A couple of demagogues (demigods? ) arguing about it will not lay the problem to rest despite claims of victory by one side or the other.

Atheists these days seem more militant, but then so are religious zealots of all colours.