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/th...ens-tony-blairOriginally Posted by smudge
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.
Last edited by bindeweede; 27th November 2010 at 09:41 PM.
Great !
Thanks Bindeweede
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!
Hitch wipes the floor with him.
Poor performance from Blair.
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.
Cheers BW
Here is another debate on religion/morality on Friendly Atheist posted yesterday.
Last edited by polomint38; 28th November 2010 at 12:47 PM.
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...night_Special/
Part 2.
Cheers BW
I caught it on the Beeb last night.
Inspiring and moving I thought.
Well worth a watch.
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.
With you 100%
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.
Not any more, as I expected.
But there is a 9 episode version starting here.
For how long???
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks