Hitchens V Blair

[smudge]

Did anyone see or hear the debate?
If anyone is aware of, or finds a link, please share!

[bindeweede]

Did anyone see or hear the debate?
If anyone is aware of, or finds a link, please share!

The debate has been transcribed - http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/11/christopher-hitchens-tony-blair

or you can watch it, until March next year, but it will cost $2.99. So no YouTube version I expect.

http://www.munkdebates.com/home.aspx

Well, apparently it IS on YouTube.

IpMPFu3mMPA

PoKlXqDIR_A

[smudge]

The debate has been transcribed - http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/11/christopher-hitchens-tony-blair

or you can watch it, until March next year, but it will cost $2.99. So no YouTube version I expect.

http://www.munkdebates.com/home.aspx

Well, apparently it IS on YouTube.

IpMPFu3mMPA

PoKlXqDIR_A

Great ! O0
Thanks Bindeweede

[Tony Williams]

I must read that one - there was a comment on it by a guest newspaper analyst on AM this morning, who was dismissive of Blair's performance. Apparently, Blair praised the churches for helping to bridge the religious divide in Northern Ireland - he didn't seem to realise that they were the cause of that divide in the first place!

[smudge]

Hitch wipes the floor with him.
Poor performance from Blair.

[Dubious Dick]

Where to begin? I would have to read the transcript and take notes in order to do justice to a full demolition of Blairs puny efforts. Sadly, like any debate format, the time was limited, and as Hitchens said there is a huge amount more prosecution evidence.

Anyway, Blair seemed to rely heavily on anecdotal evidence i.e. I have met a few religious people who are jolly nice and do good things because of their faith. Well, blow me down Tony. Who'd have guessed. Some religious people are quite nice really.

I think that summed up most of his argument. Oh yes, and just because some bad is done in the name of religion, not all should be tarred with that brush. Oh, and did Einstein really believe in a supreme being. I thought we'd nailed that one already?

And by the way Tone, despite your willingness to bargain with the devil i.e. Pope Benedict in picking and choosing which bits you do and don't like, doesn't mean many do pick the bits you don't like, and they don't listen to reason because faith is not rational as you claim.

My criticism is more with Hitchens in that, despite supposedly debating an obviously intellectual audience, already well on the right side of the argument, he is almost too good i.e. I reckon only a few can follow his argument. In fact, apropos another thread issue re humour, it seems best when he hits on heavy irony.

It would be most interesting if we could win the good versus evil in the name of religion argument e.g. reasonable estimates of religion caused deaths through aids/overpopulation/religious provoked and enhanced wars, backstreet abortions, infant mortality, and poverty prolonged due to replacement of stoneage societies with stoneage msytical beliefs, e.g. Catholic teachings, versus the numbers supposedly long term saved by the religion.

Oh, and Tone, for the record Revelations is in the New Testament last time I looked. So even if they had thrown out the old stuff like Hitch suggested, you would still have to deal with that one, along with all the other inherent NT inconsistencies. The root of faith is not as Tone suggests, compassion and loveliness, but whose god is right/best, so in that competition faith can never be a wholly good pursuit. Just a selfish and silly battle between fictional beings.

[polomint38]

The debate has been transcribed - http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/11/christopher-hitchens-tony-blair

or you can watch it, until March next year, but it will cost $2.99. So no YouTube version I expect.

http://www.munkdebates.com/home.aspx

Well, apparently it IS on YouTube.



Cheers BW

Here is another debate on religion/morality on Friendly Atheist (http://friendlyatheist.com/2010/11/27/a-debate-on-the-source-of-human-morality/) posted yesterday.

vPBqHYJT9eY

[bindeweede]

I know it's off topic, but the Newsnight Special with Hitchens and Paxman is now on YouTube. It is also available on the BBC iplayer, but I know not everyone can view that.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00wkrbk/Newsnight_Paxman_Meets_Hitchens_A_Newsnight_Specia l/

FwDYbNIHyN0
Part 2.
4DpUeKwleyw

[polomint38]

I know it's off topic, but the Newsnight Special with Hitchens and Paxman is now on YouTube. It is also available on the BBC iplayer, but I know not everyone can view that.



Cheers BW

[smudge]

I know it's off topic, but the Newsnight Special with Hitchens and Paxman is now on YouTube. It is also available on the BBC iplayer, but I know not everyone can view that.


O0
I caught it on the Beeb last night.
Inspiring and moving I thought.
Well worth a watch.

[Dubious Dick]

At the risk of derailing this thread away from purely Blair Hitchens Munk debate, I hope I can go with a similar dignity and clarity of thought!

Harry Price might be interested in his views on the mockery of religion as an important part of highlighting the absurdities and also enabling people to move away from blind and unquestioning deference to whichever fictional lord thy god and their self-appointed representatives/spokespeople here on Earth.

Am in complete agreement that well expressed division is the only way to start, maintain and conclude a debate, as opposed to the approach of the modern age i.e. the no blame, impossible dream of trying to find common ground, or indeed the gentle softly softly approach.

After all, as should be bloody obvious to all, while we make very slow progress against theisms, their adherents are still causing all sorts of strife, and holding back our potential evolution as more rational primates.

One keeps wondering what the hell would happen if we were able to get a grip on stoneage beliefs and remove their infuence from our daily lives. I keep thinking of the sheer amount of money diverted from our global economy by faith based groups. That and the sheer costs of maintaining and fighting over religious divisions. I am guessing that the sum total of those riches would buy us a heck of a lot of schools, healthcare and decent living conditions (e.g fresh water) where needed than all the f'ing missionaries put together.

Blair wittered on about the good that comes from faith, but I am as convinced as Hitchens and others that unless all the major faiths ditch about 99% of their ludicrous scriptures, then there is absolutely no way forward. And the likelihood of that is just about zilch anytime soon.

I am more convinced than ever that we must become more vocal, more aggressive, and more determined to continue the work of Hitchens and others to keep up a relentless full frontal assault on the involvement of any religion whatsoever in any politics.

[Watchman]

With you 100%

[Harryprice]

Harry Price might be interested in his views on the mockery of religion as an important part of highlighting the absurdities and also enabling people to move away from blind and unquestioning deference to whichever fictional lord thy god and their self-appointed representatives/spokespeople here on Earth.

Lots of people claim it works but I've never come across an actual case where it did. Perhaps I should attend more religion mockery meetings.

[Pebble]

Lots of people claim it works but I've never come across an actual case where it did. Perhaps I should attend more religion mockery meetings.

Perhaps that is because the approach only works on communities not individuals. The purpose of mockery is to create an atmosphere where certain beliefs/positions are subjected to negative peer pressure.

[bindeweede]

The debate has been transcribed - http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/11/christopher-hitchens-tony-blair

or you can watch it, until March next year, but it will cost $2.99. So no YouTube version I expect.

http://www.munkdebates.com/home.aspx

Well, apparently it IS on YouTube.

IpMPFu3mMPA

PoKlXqDIR_A

Not any more, as I expected.

But there is a 9 episode version starting here.

4xIfqXZuRcA

For how long???

[Harryprice]

Perhaps that is because the approach only works on communities not individuals. The purpose of mockery is to create an atmosphere where certain beliefs/positions are subjected to negative peer pressure.

So how do you know it works?

Most religious people attend churches or have religious friends or are in other social networks which reinforce their belief. I strongly doubt that scoffing skeptics would have any effect on such social networks. Thus I doubt such humour works at either an individual or group level. Indeed, I doubt it works at all, at any level, unless someone can produce some evidence to show otherwise.

[smudge]

At the risk of derailing this thread away from purely Blair Hitchens Munk debate, I hope I can go with a similar dignity and clarity of thought!



So how do you know it works?

Most religious people attend churches or have religious friends or are in other social networks which reinforce their belief. I strongly doubt that scoffing skeptics would have any effect on such social networks. Thus I doubt such humour works at either an individual or group level. Indeed, I doubt it works at all, at any level, unless someone can produce some evidence to show otherwise.


Guys, with greatest respect, lets not derail this Hitchen's thread.
We have differing opinions on this. I've made mine clear. Further discussion may warrant it's own thread. This is not it!
;)

[Dubious Dick]

Harry, I am sorry I did not mean to re-start the earlier debate. I thought we had concluded that there was not really any evidence either way. That both approaches have merit. That until we do get any conclusive evidence either way then we can continue to use all and any weapons at our disposal. Also agreed is that your efforts are admirable, and that any 'conversions' you make are for the greater good.

Only raised this for your attention as felt it was interesting that one of the most respected and tenacious foes of religion has felt it useful to apply humorous ridicule. Whilst this is anecdotal evidence in a sense, one has to say that if Hitchens found it useful an dimportant, I am not going to argue against his greater experience and certainly not without conclusive evidence.

I sdecond Pebbles. One to one I am almost certain your approach is largely correct (unless perhaps someone is already somewhat open to persuasion and has a sense of humour. Otherwise, the mass mockery of religion (based on the evident absurdities must slowly erode the ability of the theists to stand up in public and preach unopposed, as well as emboldening the existing doubters to speak out.

Also, think of it this way. Humour is often the fastest way to communicate complex issues. Many people are unable to follow long, involved philosophical discussions. Take the teapot concept. daft and funny on one level, but a pretty good way to enlighten.

'Nuff said?

[Harryprice]

Guys, with greatest respect, lets not derail this Hitchen's thread.
We have differing opinions on this. I've made mine clear. Further discussion may warrant it's own thread. This is not it!

It was an issue mentioned in the debate, so how is this derailing?

[Pebble]

It was an issue mentioned in the debate, so how is this derailing?

No evidence, but as I see it the greatest danger with religion is when it is treated with deference and respect. The nutters brigade then start taking themselves too seriously and if there is no counterweight, crowd behaviour tends to get behind the extremists. That is, I beleive, why Islam is so powerful in Islamic states, but more accomodating in democracies.

Mocking religion openly is one of the best ways of ensuring that it is obvious to everyone in the community that extremist views are just that 'extremist'.

[smudge]

Richard Dawkins on Christopher Hitchens (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/01/christopher-hitchens-richard-dawkins).

[Harryprice]

I don't wish to sound skeptical but, until I see some evidence, I will continue to doubt that mocking beliefs causes believers to abandon them.

[Pebble]

I don't wish to sound skeptical but, until I see some evidence, I will continue to doubt that mocking beliefs causes believers to abandon them.


Fair enough, but I should point out that there has never been a randomised trial to demonstate the efficacy of parachutes.

[Dubious Dick]

Fair enough, but I should point out that there has never been a randomised trial to demonstate the efficacy of parachutes.


:cheesy:

[Harryprice]

Fair enough, but I should point out that there has never been a randomised trial to demonstate the efficacy of parachutes.

Luckily they can be tested without living cargo.

[Pebble]

Luckily they can be tested without living cargo.

Yes but such studies have never been published.

There is oddly a literature on satire and it's role in persuasion - pretty old and does not really resolve the argument.

http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED395321.pdf

Nevertheless, politicians continue to believe that satirising opponents views is rather effective - remember how completely John Major was undermined by the grey man with his underpants on outside his trousers in spitting image.

Those who use satire certainly believe it is persuasive, though it probably more acts to immunise those who generally agree with you from being persuaded to change sides, rather than winning new converts. In the field of religion I think it has a role in stopping religion being taken too seriously by our legislators, who certainly remain terrified of being lampooned for their decisions.