PITTED against former Prime Minister and Catholic convert Tony Blair, atheist Christopher Hitchens yesterday emerged the clear winner of a debate on religion.
The two went head to head in Toronto to debate whether religion is a force for good in the world.
Blair and Hitchens pictured at the Toronto debate
During the Munk debate, Hitchens, author of God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, argued that religion had caused misery throughout the ages by aggravating many of the world’s conflicts.
He likened God to a “divine North Korea” and questioned how good it was for the world to:
Worship a deity that takes sides in wars and human affairs, to appeal to our fear and to our guilt.
And he asked:
To terrify children with the image of hell … to consider women an inferior creation. Is that good for the world?
Blair argued that religion was a force for good because faith motivated many people to do good works.
He pointed to Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot as evidence of the fact that even if religion disappeared from the world, religious fanaticism would not.
He insisted that in spite of some of its “strange and outdated” ideas, religion still offered people:
A benign progressive framework by which to live our lives … The proposition that religion is unadulterated poison is unsustainable.
Even before the debate, most of the 2,700-strong audience were on Hitchens’ side, with 57 percent saying they disagreed with the premise that religion was a force for good, 22Â percent saying they agreed and the remainder saying they were undecided.
When the audience was asked to fill in ballot papers at the end of the debate, it appeared both had managed to win over some of the undecided, with 68 percent siding with Hitchens and 32 percent with Blair.
Hitchens, who has final stage oesophageal cancer, said that he had arranged his chemotherapy around the debate so that he would not be “demoralised”.
Hat tip: John M White
The Freethinker was founded in 1881 by GW Foote, an outspoken critic of religion. After the publication of 
November 29th, 2010 at 8:12 am
I suppose I should watch the debate before commenting, but, going by that, is it really going to be worth my trouble?
I suppose it’s a step up from actually saying that their (putative in Hitler’s case) atheism was the direct cause. But, really? Are these three names the only argument that religiots have? Every bloody time, they trot them out like some sort of holy (ahem) mantra, from semi-literate trolls to the so-called better-informed top rank. Maybe they should just cut a rubber stamp and have done with it.
Also, he appears to be saying that the fact that other forms of fanaticism exist means we shouldn’t argue against any. Rather like a doctor not treating a malaria patient because they might catch something else later.
November 29th, 2010 at 8:18 am
Countdown to the list of ties between Hitler’s regime and the catholic church of the day…
November 29th, 2010 at 8:55 am
Whatever the merits or otherwise of this particular match up, I can’t help but feel delighted that advocates of a secular, indeed atheist model are at last being given a such a high profile platform.
It gives me hope for the future.
November 29th, 2010 at 9:01 am
Another soft target: foregone conclusion. I agree with Daz – what’s the point?
November 29th, 2010 at 9:10 am
Full transcript here:
http://www.juancole.com/2010/1.....igion.html
November 29th, 2010 at 9:19 am
Full debate on youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xIfqXZuRcA
November 29th, 2010 at 9:35 am
Harry:
We should give that law a name. Godwin-B, maybe.
November 29th, 2010 at 9:37 am
They say that we atheists have nothing new to bring to these debates, but that is only because the theists have not produced anything new for us to debate. And secondly, it is the theist that makes the claims and that means that they are the one’s to provide the evidence for us to examine. They have, we have examined it and found it wanting, and have told them to return with better and newer evidence. We wait now
November 29th, 2010 at 10:02 am
Videos here:
http://www.bing.com/videos/sea.....ate+video#
November 29th, 2010 at 10:24 am
It’s a pity nobody asked Blair how he could lie to the nation before taking it into an unjust and illegal war and still profess to be a man of faith.
November 29th, 2010 at 10:26 am
Hardly a shock that Hitchens came out on top in that one. Blair was no match for Hitchens – even a Hitchens stricken with cancer.
*will seek out the debate on YouTube*
November 29th, 2010 at 10:29 am
At
greatno expense to myself, and afterhours ofmuch toila couple of minutes playing with a graphics program, I’ve created this handy picture file, which should, if used pre-emptively, drastically shorten most conversations with internet fundies. Please feel free to link to it whenever you feel the need.http://i203.photobucket.com/al.....uments.png
Voluntary donations:
Cheques or postal orders to-
Daz’s College of Divinity,
Cell 5,
Block 9,
HMP…
November 29th, 2010 at 11:04 am
My thanks to all who posted links on this debate. It made my morning to watch the great Hitchens, with consummate ease, demolish any of the statements made by Blair. I got the impression he had not even moved up to second gear.
November 29th, 2010 at 11:04 am
When I was a Christian I knew of arguments that atheists could have employed to which I had no answer, yet they were either unaware of them or chose not to use them. Now that I am an atheist I can see far better arguments to back up faith than the ones that religionists use. Why do they continually trot out the same old rubbish, as Daz has so brilliantly illustrated above?
November 29th, 2010 at 11:24 am
That could save a lot of time, Daz.
November 29th, 2010 at 3:52 pm
I thought at least a lawyer, a politician and a traitor would have provided a decent match-up for Hitchens; you’d think a guy like Blair would at least have made an effort with his lies and subterfuge. Unfortunately it appears he was on autopilot, parroting the same inane blather that makes theists feel superior, atheists feel bored and anyone on the fence feel insulted that so little effort was made to even give them something to think about.
Perhaps one should point out that Tony Blair voluntarily joined an organisation that Hitler remained a member of until his death (and even then, technically he still is in communion with the church), and not only that, it is an organisation that he and the world were fully aware at the time was neck deep in sex abuse scandals it had deliberately tried to hide from the civil authorities around the planet. I do not understand how anyone could look at the Catholic Church and say “yes, that’s for me” and then claim the moral high ground against anybody in a debate.
November 29th, 2010 at 4:49 pm
Blair had nothing. Only his overweening vanity and lust for publicity could have led him into this trashing. Behind the smarmy smile there is nothing. Hitchens is dying; dying bravely and with the verve and courage of a hero. Blair is dead already to everything that makes life worth living. He is a cardboard man, he inhabits a fantasy and he has embraced a superstition called Roman Catholicism in an attempt to blunt his fears and quiet his guilts.
The former Bush poodle, liar to his own government, sanctimonious hypocrite extraordinaire traipses the world preaching the gospel of “Blessed are the poor” while raking in as much money as possible from his lectures. His hands are still bloodied from the deaths his illegal war caused, thousands will live their lives crippled because of what he started.
This debate was worthwhile. It demonstrated the courage of an atheist against the feeble and phony confidence, soon punctured, of a christian.
November 29th, 2010 at 5:24 pm
Estimate the amount of airtime which the BBC “Sunday” programme – programme lasts about 50 minutes – would allocate to the following:
a. Tony Blair decisively defeats Christopher Hitchins in the debate and leaves Hitchins dependent on cliches.
b. Christopher Hitchins decisively defeats Tony Blair and leaves Blair dependent on cliches.
Estimate the odds of the following happening:
a. Blair wins and the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster is invited on the programme to discuss the strength of the Christian faith which led to the win for Blair.
b. Hitchins wins and Richard Dawkins in invited on the programme to discuss the power of rational thought and the growing strength of atheism which led to the win for Hitchins.
November 29th, 2010 at 6:47 pm
It’s worth noting that Hitchens was a supporter of the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and therefore not likely to attack Blair for taking Britain to war in order to do just that.
Dan
November 29th, 2010 at 7:06 pm
Oddly the before and after polls suggested to me that Blair had won over slighly more of the undecideds than Hitchens, although it would be hard to be sure without doing the maths. I agree that Blair had nothing to offer except the same thread-bare assertions and fallacies that have been refuted a thousand times before and that Hitchens pasted him but the audience didn’t seem to see it that way.
Has anyone been over to the ‘Platitude of the Day’ blog where this debate was the subject of todays Radio Four 7:50am mini sermon? there is a link to the transcript where Clifford Longley describes Christianity’s perverse morality in loving detail.
November 29th, 2010 at 8:13 pm
Paxman Meets Hitchens.
If you missed it you can view it here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/e.....t_Special/
November 29th, 2010 at 9:52 pm
I think religion is a force for good, but I would distinguish religions from people who practise them. If fact there are no bad religions but people who take advantage from them in order to get personal advantages, like making money, having power and so on. That happened also at Jesus’ time. Personally I am a searcher, just a searcher. Socrates used to say he was wiser than others for he recognized to be ignorant, so am I. For knowing if religions and spirituality are worthwhile I have been collecting plenty of data, all collected in my book. In my Blog http://www.authorettoregrillo.com I broach the theme religion, money, power.
My book contains many data and it is a must for people who want to open their mind. It describes many religions and rites. The title is Travels of the Mind. My website is http://www.ettoregrillo.com.
If you have any questions, I am most willing to offer my views on this topic.
Ettore Grillo
November 30th, 2010 at 2:36 am
“If fact there are no bad religions but people who take advantage from them in order to get personal advantages, like making money, having power and so on.”
I can think of several religions which encourage(d) human sacrifice, the burning and butchering of anyone who was of a certain type or not of a certain type, and mandate intolerance and cruelty to people because of their age, gender, sexual orientation, social class, race, or whether or not they have a foreskin. This is not because of people taking advantage of religions – this is what the religions have in their holy texts. It’s what their gods demand of them. It is the religions themselves as defined by themselves. So yes, there are bad religions, some very, very bad ones.
What is it about these things that is a force for good? Religions might tell people “feed the poor” but you don’t need a religion to tell you that. You do need one to tell you “set fire to that child, I think she’s a witch” and think it’s somehow a good idea.
November 30th, 2010 at 9:35 am
Hitchens really has lost the plot when he feels he needs to enter into a debate with a fucking moron. I wish someone would wipe the smirk off of blairs face and I mean break his jaw and sew his mouth shut.
November 30th, 2010 at 11:38 am
Graham: He’d still be talking out of his arse!
November 30th, 2010 at 11:54 am
Well the one good thing going for Toronto is they may not all be religious nuts. Trust me, that is the only shining light right now.
November 30th, 2010 at 2:12 pm
barriejohn: I think he’s been doing that since 1997.
November 30th, 2010 at 2:34 pm
That’s what I meant!