Saturday, November 27, 2010

The Blair-Hitchens religion debate


It is kind of so many to ask His Grace to comment on the outcome of the Munk Debate: 'Be it resolved, religion is a force for good in the world'.

It is reported that devout atheist Christopher Hitchens trashed the devout Roman Catholic Tony Blair:

PRE-DEBATE
PRO: 22% CON:57%
UNDECIDED:21%

POST-DEBATE
PRO: 32% CON: 68%

Professor Richard Dawkins is positively orgasmic over this startling new evidence for the non-existence of God that he has commissioned himself to write another book and generously promised to donate all royalties to the ultra-enlightened Richard Dawkins Foundation.

The full debate is available HERE.

But His Grace would urge you not to waste your time.

This event was nothing to do with reasoned debate: it was about selling tickets to raise the profile of Munk's objective 'to debate major issues facing the world and Canada'.

'...the world and Canada'?

Is Canada not a part of the world?

Or is Munk so Canadacentric and in denial that the only way they think they can be heard is to invite a controversial politician to debate with a political controversialist?

The debate sold out and played to an audience of 2,600. Before it commenced, touts were selling tickets for up to five hundred Canadian dollars, which challenges Kylie's O2 mark-up for extortion.

But His Grace would just like to point out one very obvious thing which the media have hitherto ignored, perhaps out of sensitivity:

The pro-religion argument was put by a highly divisive politician accused of deceiving Parliament to support an illegal war and of complicity in war crimes. During the debate, demonstrators unveiled placards that read 'Arrest Blair' and 'War criminals not welcome here'. He is a recent convert to Roman Catholicism, now with his own Faith Foundation, having spent his entire political career undermining the cause of religion and the conscience concerns of his co-religionists.

The anti-religion argument was put by a man presently undergoing chemotherapy for oesophageal cancer, who has indicated that he may not have long to live.

No-one protested against his presence.

The man dying of cancer won.

As they say (somewhere), 'Go figure'.

66 Comments:

Blogger Prodicus said...

His Grace often enrages me and never more so than when he expresses my opinion better than I can, as with this post.

27 November 2010 at 19:56  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Sounds like munkdebates.com are the winners.

Other than that - 10% more agreed afterwards, 11% more were opposed afterwards. So - like Dawkins (pbuh) said - resounding evidence of something or other.

27 November 2010 at 20:27  
Anonymous Preacher said...

Your Grace.
It was obviously a set up job, everybody knows that Canada exists.
Tony B could be a hologram.
But God is real.

27 November 2010 at 20:38  
Blogger Jonathan Hunt said...

It enrages me that Blair is set forth as some kind of defender of faith. Ugh.

I also note that the 'undecideds' only favoured Hitchens by the odd 1%. He had, it seems, the vast majority resolved to support him in the first place.

27 November 2010 at 20:59  
Anonymous Rock Fetishist said...

I don't know about God, but I'm certain that Allah exists. He's a meteorite shaped like a lady's thingy.

27 November 2010 at 22:39  
Anonymous Michal said...

It's hilarious how the most Cranmer has to say is "Well he won because he's a cancer patient, and we all know people just give them everything."

Talk about Christian spirit.

27 November 2010 at 23:37  
Anonymous Elmo said...

Very funny Your Grace and quite right! How Tony Blair could possibly argue for anything and be believed is preposterous. And Hitchens is so much better trained at this than Blair is. A very unfair tussle. But I have to say that my vote would go with Hitchens, whoever his opponent...

27 November 2010 at 23:48  
Anonymous Zach Johnstone said...

Your Grace,

I was sorely tempted to send this to you upon reading about it this morning, but decided against it having reached very similar conclusions myself.

A sham of a debate when we take into account the participants and their respective positioning in the public psyche.

27 November 2010 at 23:53  
Anonymous non mouse said...

I recall another such debate in London, quite recently. Hitchens (was it?) and a homosexual man won against a couple of Catholics: Widdecombe and an African Bishop. That was before they understood the lady's talent for dancing, mind.

Still, I thought that debate was a setup - anything but fair; and that, from the outset, the audience was clearly biased in favour of the opposition. The organizers here seem to have played the same strategy. Why, in this day and age, is the defence left entirely to Catholics?

Further, though - is this to turn into a series of debates on the same topic? Why?

28 November 2010 at 00:59  
Anonymous TheObserver said...

And I thought the West is not obsessed with sex. Not it is not, Rock Fetishist is EDL! They see everything as an intimate part of the human body. What perverted mind you have Rocky F. Don't stare on the porn to much now deary, it numbs the mind.

Read first, accuse later.

http://www.answering-christianity.com/black_stone.htm

http://www.answering-christianity.com/que11.htm

28 November 2010 at 01:03  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You do know that Hitch was one of the most outspoken supporters of Blair's illegal war?

Another way of putting it... This was a debate between one of the richest, most powerful, most accomplished liars in history and a decrepit, almost universally reviled, dying journalist. But the journalist won anyway because he told the truth and had the best arguments.

28 November 2010 at 01:07  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

@Elmo Said
Very funny Your Grace and quite right! How Tony Blair could possibly argue for anything and be believed is preposterous. And Hitchens is so much better trained at this than Blair is. A very unfair tussle. But I have to say that my vote would go with Hitchens, whoever his opponent...

Mr Hitchens was goaded into debating William Craig Lane and was destroyed, he was even warned by his atheist co-horts not to do it.Dawkins refuses to debate Dr Lane!.even admitted by hitchens himself he got a kicking.
But then Blair does not really know what he believes in..Janus

28 November 2010 at 01:34  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Peter Munk was a major gold mine operator who sold out to the Russians before putting other Canadian businessmen in touch with Russian money. He has helped transfer ownership of Canadian resources to Russian oligarchs propped up with banks loans from those banks we taxpayers are now propping up.

A charitable foundation is a nice way of laundering taxable gains and hiring people like Rentboy Blair is just another performance.

Canada has a strange record on "free speech" if you read Mark Steyn's blog - it has a tendency to shut down debate if it is not in an approved direction.

Blair is intellectually incapable of debate which is why he was an employment lawyer and not a criminal lawyer. He is intellectually sluggish and unable to structure coherent argument - as for Hitchens, he is simply a misfit

28 November 2010 at 06:31  
Anonymous len said...

Why Tony Blair is put into the position of'defender of the faith'is totally beyond me.
Tony Blair who now'does religion' but didn`t have the balls to speak up for Christianity when he was in power is the worse possible example of a 'Christian' that there possibly could be,and he is an alleged Catholic to make matters worse!.
I agree with Christopher Hitchens the world is worse off for Religion.
Jesus Christ came to restore the broken relationship between man and God not to set up a' new religion.'
If you want to know the truth about 'religion 'I suggest you look to the Truth- Jesus Christ not to the counterfeit - Blair.

28 November 2010 at 08:38  
Blogger ZZMike said...

I am aggrieved that Hitchens' cancer is terminal I had thought it just another trip through hell to remission.

I disagree with his religious philosophy (or lack of it), but he seems to be an honest man - and a damn good conversationalist.

Without knowing the details of the debate, I would have to side with Hitchens - because we have to include Islam among those religions.

28 November 2010 at 08:40  
Blogger srizals said...

I suggest you look to the Truth- Jesus Christ not to the counterfeit - Blair.

Well said Len, with you on this one.

28 November 2010 at 08:55  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am astonished that someone of Christopher Hitchen's talent can demonstrate such a fundamental lack of grasp of his subject.

He has no grasp of the fact that not every religion is monotheistic- Buddhism and Animism being very different from the religions derived from Abrahamic tradition. Paganism has none of the judgement narratives either.

What is perhaps worse is his ignorance of either of the subjects with which he ought to be familiar.

The BBC clip shown had Hitchens declaring that God makes us sick and commands us to be well.

In the Christian tradition God plainly does not 'make us sick and command us to be well"

On the contrary, he makes Man "in his own image" who - like the self indulgent junkie much defended by liberals - decides "to do his own
thing" and ends up in chaotic estrangement from that which was intended - the very best he could be.

Far from rejection, and modelled in the parent of the Prodigal Son parrable( also known more accurately as the "patient father") God waits and welcomes the return. Rather more, he sends servant after servant to be rejected until he send his son to call us home - who is then rejected despised and killed.

Thereby demonstrating within the narrative the love, patience and forbearance of North Korea?????!!!! PUHLEASE do not show your ignorance!

The poor man not only does not understand religion, he does not even fully grasp the nature of totalitarian states, who -unlike God, brook no dissent, rejection and offer no second chances. In the God narrative under discussion ( and in this part of the argument he is taking religion on "on its own terms") there is no comparison between the chosen estrangement of the non believer and the "created sick" suggestion.

Does nobody at the BBC Religious affairs Department understand this? Oh no, silly me - they don't recruit Christians.

28 November 2010 at 08:57  
Anonymous martin sewell said...

anonymous = martin sewell - hurrying to send before attending Divine Worship!

28 November 2010 at 08:58  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i agree with the observer. dat rock fetishist link is obseen racist and offensive. moderators pls remove

28 November 2010 at 09:48  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Srizals said 28th November 2010 8.55

Your comment is deceptive? are you saying what Jesus said about himself is true?
However your Quaran states'[4:171] O people of the scripture, do not transgress the limits of your religion, and do not say about GOD except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was a messenger of GOD, and His word that He had sent to Mary, and a revelation from Him. Therefore, you shall believe in GOD and His messengers. You shall not say, "Trinity." You shall refrain from this for your own good. GOD is only one god. Be He glorified; He is much too glorious to have a son. To Him belongs everything in the heavens and everything on earth. GOD suffices as Lord and Master.'
How can you therefore agree with Len said. Or is it just a Muslim's opinion that he was a great prophet only?

28 November 2010 at 11:40  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Or is it just a Muslim's opinion that he was a great prophet only?

Muslims have no idea. They have a cult built around an illiterate merchant using verses written by a Nestorian monk so the Arabs could have their own identity separate from the Jews.

There is no Risen Christ in Islam so it has nothing to do with Christianity which itself is a splinter group from Judaism and prayed in synagogues for th first 70 years of its existence.

Where Judaism and Christianity are spiritual, Islam is commercial, a code to serve the needs of a merchant who plundered traders and acted throughout with subterfuge, guile, and blatant hypocrisy.

Noone knows what the Koran says since any alternative manuscripts were destroyed to produce the one uniform doctrine suited to the ruler that drew it up. It is incapable of textual analysis

28 November 2010 at 12:02  
Anonymous len said...

Is the idea of the'Trinity'biblical?.
This gives the false idea to Muslims that the Christians worship THREE Gods!

Where did the idea of the 'trinity come from?
The Trinity Doctrine is not taught anywhere in scripture, but trinities were common in Paganism and were prominent in Egypt and Babylon.
The beginnings of recognition of this doctrine started at the Council of Nicea approximately 325 AD. Hundreds of years after the last book in the Bible was written.
The Council of Nicea was organized by the Roman Emperor Constantine and he had the final say on matters that he had little understanding of.

www.heaven.net.nz/answers/answer08.htm

28 November 2010 at 12:07  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If Christianity is to survive it has first to distance itself in no uncertain terms from Islam and Islamism.

I would fight to defend my Country but not for a religion.

28 November 2010 at 12:14  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My blogger sign is KINGOFHIGHCS
Len Said..Are you hung up on a statement such as Trinity/Triune. If the truth offends Islam or whoever so be it. The Lord is justified by His own Word and not by men!
It is a term in the english language to describe a revealed phenomena and I am not ashamed of my God!
The First Book of The Bible Genesis 1.26 uses the term ELOHIM plural.
Isiah declares throughout that Messiah is God and God's only begotten son.
In the psalms David said'God said to my God'

So just by these few statements there are at least 2 persons in the Godhead so why should a third 'The Holy Spirit 'offend you.

God is a plural unity.(a man and a woman shall cleave together and become one flesh) The ONLY GOD there is and all other gods are false gods

28 November 2010 at 12:36  
Anonymous martin sewell said...

Len, actually the beginning of Trinitarianism was circulating well before the Nicean Council which was called to resolve what was an already heated controversy ( and did so by a very narrow majority).

The non Trinitarian theology of the defeated group were taken by Arius into the Arabian peninsular where such ideas were probably encountered by Mahommed. This accounts for the heretical ( to Christians) views of Islam on the subject.

The equality of the Father and the Son was accepted widely amongst those of the Alexandrian persuasion. It evolved into Father Son and Holy Spirit as equal persons within the Godhead but not separate deities. The understanding had to be developed as the Gospel narratives raised such questions which might have been less apparent when the developing church was growing with a rather more fragmented set of documents.

This was opposed to the Arian view that The Son was a lesser person than the Father. The controversy began with division over the Divine Nature of Christ which was clarifying as the Gospels gained greater acceptance. Its contrary view developed in answer, to rather than parallel with, that understanding which was growing through the dissemination of the Gospels

It would be perhaps inaccurate to portray Constantine as a major idealogical figure in that Council because he was at that time sympathetic to the faith but not yet Christian himself.

The Emperor was called to chair the Council partly because the peace of his empire, which was being sundered by the controversy, was very much a concern to him, but also as he was of neither party he was the only one that both sides trusted.

28 November 2010 at 12:51  
Anonymous EDL theology department said...

Christianity has a Trinity, but Islam has a Quaternity (or whatever the word is for four of them) cos there's Allah and his three wayward daughters.

28 November 2010 at 12:55  
Anonymous EDL theology dept. said...

...and another thing...


Tawhid (tawheed) is what passes for Muslim theology. Its main principles are...

- The absolute indivisible unity of Allah.
- The omniscience of Allah about all events past, present and future.
- The unfettered omnipotence of Allah. He can do anything he wants.
- The incomparable uniqueness of Allah, he is totally unlike anything in his creation.
- The micromanagement of the world. Laws of science are an illusion. Allah recreates the universe moment by moment according to his whim.
- Indivisible sovereignty of Allah - Man has no free will.
- Allah as a necessary rather than contingent being.

It all seems deceptively simple, and indeed this deceptiveness is used to lure the gullible into Islam, especially those Christians who do not have a sound understanding of the Trinity and the reasons why the indivisible unity of Allah leads to logical absurdities.

Of course other aspects of tawheed as well as the indivisible unity are in contradiction with Christianity. We could mention in passing the following list...

- Omniscience about future events and indivisible sovereignty precludes human free-will. We are all Allah's automatons.
- Unfettered omnipotence contradicts the observed laws of nature.
- The incomparable uniqueness of Allah contradicts Christian doctrine that Man is made in God's image.
- Omnipotence contradicts necessary existence. An omnipotent being could do anything, including ceasing to exist. Therefore Allah's existence is contingent upon his not deciding to cease to exist.

However, this comment is primarily concerned with the Muslim attacks on the Trinity, which consist of the repetitive mantra 'Allah has no son' (try googling it to see just how repetitive it is) plus accusations that Christians are polytheists, worship three gods, ascribe partners to Allah etc etc.

Let's first of all look at the logical contradictions that appear when we take the indivisibility of God to its absolute conclusion, and then at the history of tawhid.

Indivisible Unity Implies Paralysis
All functioning entities must be composite in order to function. Something that was an absolute indivisible unity could never interact with anything else. For an 'entity' to interact it must either give something of itself, or receive something into itself. Everything that causes a change is itself changed in the process.

An absolutely indivisible entity would be completely inert - an analogy from elementary chemistry would be those inert gases such as helium and neon that can't give up or take up electrons, and so can't form compounds or interact with any other elements. For the same reason an absolutely indivisible Allah would be powerless and unaware of any changes around him. The Jews understood this perfectly well, and referred to God as 'Elohim' - a plural noun. Similarly, the early Christians had the doctrine of the Trinity, which refers to three modes of existence or interaction of God, not to three Gods as Mohammed apparently believed. (Mohammed may even have believed that Mary was one aspect of the Trinity)

.

28 November 2010 at 13:06  
Anonymous EDL theology dept said...

Unlike most other religions, Islam didn't start off as a coherent body of doctrine. It began as the rantings and ravings of a psychopathic pedophile, which were altered according to the requirements of his debauched lifestyle. The Koran is full of internal contradictions, with the more violent verses 'abrogating' (i.e. cancelling) the more peaceful ones.

Nor was Islam spread by missionary efforts as with other religions. It was imposed by the sword by a thuggish bunch of robbers, rapists and murderers who were attracted by Mohammed's offer of divinely approved raids of rape and pillage. Mohammed bragged that he had been made victorious with terror.

Consequently, the later Muslims had to try to do a retrofit of theology and philosophy on to what was a pig's breakfast of garbled Jewish and Christian beliefs mixed up with Mohammed's ramblings and ravings. They soon gave up on the philosophy, and didn't do much better with the theology.

What they settled for was a God of extremes, who was very much overspecified ('my God is bigger than your God and doesn't need any partners or sons' etc)

But strange to relate, although Allah had no sons, he did have three daughters who were venerated in early versions of the Koran.

Allah's arse or butt and Bi-la kayf or Bi-la kaifa
Also, in his early days Allah was very much divisible into parts. The Koran says he's got hands, a face and buttocks with which to sit on his throne. Tawhid doesn't cope with Mohammed's anthropomorphism all that well, and this crude Koranic portrayal of Allah is, like his daughters, a great embarassment to Muslim theologians. Raising this subject usually provokes the angrily defensive retort of 'Bi-la kayf' or 'Bi-la kaifa' , which means Mohammedan contradictions and absurdities must be accepted without asking how or why. This anti-rational aspect of Tahwid is another illustration of how Islam produces idiocy, and idiocy produces Islam.


Over-specified Allah
The subsequent Muslim theologians over-specified Allah with power attributes to such an extent that he has become a logically impossible being.

- There is a contradiction in the idea of a supreme being who is omniscient, compassionate and yet creates souls in the knowledge that they are damned to eternal agony burning in hell. This contradiction has never been resolved by the Muslims. If Allah is omniscient then He knows all events past and future, including how people will behave, and their ultimate fate before they are even born. The future is already laid out before him like the frames of a movie.


- If Allah is omniscient about the future, then he can never make a decision or choose a course of action, because he knows in advance exactly what his future actions will be for all eternity. He cannot decide to change his mind because he will know in advance when and how he will decide to change his mind, so his mind will already be made up. Such a supreme being would be totally paralysed by his own pre-ordained future - the ultimate in feed-back loops or logical contradictions, which ever way you care to look at it. Allah could have no free will!

This gives a double whammy of paralysis when combined with the inert indivisibility.

Christianity does not suffer from this logical conflict, because God has given Man free will, which removes the inevitability of determinism from the feedback loop. Within the Trinity, the Son clearly also has free will, for example to choose to accept or resist the temptations of Satan.

28 November 2010 at 13:11  
Anonymous EDL theology dept said...

...and one final theological point. It's not widely known, but Mohammed in his younger days was a toyboy or gigolo, parasitic and dependent upon an older woman, Khadija . When she died, he went on a rampage of murder, plunder and sexual debauchery which involved the sexual humiliation of women and girls. This was almost certainly a revenge on all women for the perceived humiliation he had received by being Khadija's employee and toyboy.

All the misogynistic crap in the Koran is probably motivated by the same need to humiliate women.

28 November 2010 at 13:25  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Martin Sewell Said
I agree with nearly all you said except your opening line.
Trinitarianism did not precede after the New Testament but was believed by the disciples/apostles as being confirmed by Jesus himself verbally to them as recorded in the New Testament that Christ was God (himself) and that when he ascended(as Messiah God) to the Father(God) another comforter(The Holy Spirt God) would come and dwell in them.
The dispute came about because of corrupt teachers as Paul and other New Testament writers confirmed in their epistles and was being spread brazenly by heretics.

If Christ himself verbally confirms the Triune Godhead how can we deny it?

He, Christ, is seated beside his Father in heaven on his Father's throne while The Holy Spirit is here indwelling believers. Could it be simpler?

So says KINGOFHIGHCS

28 November 2010 at 13:36  
Anonymous len said...

Martin Sewell,
The theological warfare between the Arius and Athanasius doctrinal camps about the trinitarian dogma was intense. Constantine realized that the his empire was being threatened by the doctrinal rift. Constantine began to pressure the church to come to terms with its differences before the results became disastrous to his empire. Finally the emperor called a council at Nicea in 325 AD to resolve the dispute.

Only a fraction of existing bishops, 318, attended. This equated to about 18% of all the bishops in the empire. Of the 318, approximately 10 were from the Western part of Constantine's empire, making the voting lopsided at best. The emperor manipulated, coerced and threatened the council to be sure it voted for what he believed rather than an actual consensus of the bishops.

The present day Christian church touts Constantine as the first Christian emperor, however, his 'Christianity' was politically motivated. Whether he personally accepted Christian doctrine is highly doubtful. He had one of his sons murdered in addition to a nephew, his brother in law and possibly one of his wives. He continued to retain his title of high priest in a pagan religion until his death. He was not baptized until he was on his deathbed.
Constantine was a total disaster for Christianity for the church had adopted paganism and corrupted itself.

28 November 2010 at 13:43  
Blogger starcourse said...

Your Grace: there is no such person as Professor Richard Dawkins. He is retired and is plain Dr Dawkins. And his professorship was bought for him by an admirer.

28 November 2010 at 13:51  
Blogger oldmaid said...

Hmmm, one fills the country up with a conflicting ideology and pampers to their every whim. Creates laws and policies to give them priority and rights over the indigenous one whilst attempting to silence the concerns of the Nation and then changes his religion to something else after he has tied our own in knots.

Whilst the other is equally mouthy and full of platitudes demanding no-one should have a belief except his.

Appears to me they are both as bad as each other.

28 November 2010 at 14:50  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Is it true that 83% words in The Koran are those of Chairman Mo and only 17% are those supposedly from "Al-Lah" ?

It does seem as if in Islam chairman Mo is the human incarnation of Al-Lah way beyond the symbolism of any Pope....perhaps he is L Rob Hubbard of the 7h Century

28 November 2010 at 14:53  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Old Maid said..
'Whilst the other is equally mouthy and full of platitudes demanding no-one should have a belief except his.'

I disagree..All are entitled to have their belief as all must give an account of themselves before God on the judgement day by the light that that have been given or words spoken to them!

All I ask is to reason with my fellow man that all Gods are not the same and that the One True God has declared all men to repent of their ways and turn to Him and be forgiven.

Whereas the religion of others states that I must be subdued and killed as an infidel (if not in agreement with their god or I refuse to accept their demand I am )as a believing Christian I ask they consider the One who came to reconcile God to man by belief in Him so that wherever anyone who believes in Christ is where Christ is so shall any other man who accepts this free gift from God!
Their is no condemnation in Christ Jesus.
I cannot be held accountable for people who professing Christ do otherwise.

I disagree with Islam and for me it is no different from Mormonism, that preach another prophet( Joseph Smith or Muhammed) and another Book (Book Of Mormon or Quaran). The least of the Prophets in the Bible is greater than any of the above mentioned. Where is their authentication of/by prophecy or miracles?? None

Just as the epistle of James states Show me your works as I believe also but I will show you mine but attached to faith.

Jam 1:22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.
Jam 1:23 For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass:
Jam 1:24 For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was.

Jam 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
Jam 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
Jam 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

We declare our faith through works of faith that delight Our God by preaching the Good News that we are commended to do by Christ himself.

I offer no apology that I love all men and they should consider Christ,for if I have declared this but they still wish to continue in unbelief I am not held accountable on the Great Day of Judgement that I said nothing, like a man who discovers water in a wilderness then hides it source from fellow wanders solely for himself.

So Says KINGOFHIGHCS

28 November 2010 at 15:40  
Anonymous touchingcloth said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

28 November 2010 at 16:37  
Anonymous yrmam said...

Great analysis there, your grace. Hitchens' cancer is _definitely_ the reason he won the debate, not the fact that most of the audience members agreed more with the words coming out of his mouth than Blair's. Definitely the cancer. No doubt. You are so good at this analysis stuff - _Soooo_ good.

28 November 2010 at 16:48  
Anonymous morungos said...

I think you miss the point. The debate was about whether religion was a force for good *in the world*. An politician of international standing who, whatever else you may think of him, tried to do what he believe was right, is excellent placed to defend this view. (I disagree with many of his actions, but I grudgingly admire his flawed and failed attempt to steer a moral course.) Hitchens, as a leading critic of religion as a force for good, was an appropriate opponent.

I'd say this is a refreshing change from the usual religion approach of defining religion as intrinsically moral, which it patently is not. Like others, I am not saying that it cannot be a force for good, in some people, but to deny that it can be (and has been) a force for large-scale tragedy is just simply wrong.

As you have observed, both debaters are political. This is a political question, and Munk is about political debate. It has nothing to do with whether religious beliefs are true, or differences between people's religious beliefs. Casting it as a religious debate is simply wrong.

28 November 2010 at 16:55  
Blogger WoollyMindedLiberal said...

If God actually existed then there would be no scope for any such debate.

28 November 2010 at 17:21  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

What a cheap remark “The man dying of cancer won”, he won because he had the best argument. C Hitchens (not to be confused with his bro Peter) is a brilliant debater who has been ruthlessly honest about the imminence of his own death. Mind you it is not a difficult argument to win, we have a 1000 years of religiously motivated conflict to fall back on, all driven by an unwillingness of people to recognise the reality of our existence favouring simple fairy stories to hard truth.

29 November 2010 at 09:05  
Blogger Caedmon's Cat said...

It was hardly an even contest, was it? I'm reminded of a video shown to a friend and myself some years ago by some Muslim people who wanted to have dialogue with Christians. The video was of a debate in South Africa between a popular Muslim apologist (whose name I forget) - and the contender in the Christians' corner was Jimmy Swaggart (hardly renowned in the American Christian world for either moral integrity or theological scholarship). The Muslim cleric ran rings around him - much to the delight of the crowd of Muslim devotees. Blair hardly has the cards stacked in his favour, does he? What were the people who approached him for the debate with Hitchens smoking?

Mr Davis - nice to see you gracing these hallowed portals again. I love to glean some new titbit from your stores of anti-Christian ignorance.. ;-)

29 November 2010 at 09:58  
Anonymous TheObserver said...

EDL Theology Department.

Get a grip of yourself. You're embarrassing the never wrong EDL. What if you can't stand on your allegations? Luckily there's no Muslims reading all this.

29 November 2010 at 10:13  
Anonymous TheObserver said...

I'm starting to feel closer to Len. Maybe his sincerity in his belief.

Len, your sincerity is overwhelming. EDL representative, read up and quite drinking while you're on this blog.

29 November 2010 at 10:19  
Anonymous AtillaTheHun said...

I think srizals has really gone for a holiday, or he's scared of the EDL thugs?

29 November 2010 at 10:22  
Anonymous Kiwi said...

Re EDL @The Observer: "What if you can't stand on your allegations?
Er', these are not 'allegations' - Look them up yourself, try reading the Qur'an or the Hadith, it's all there.
BTW, I have no connection whatsoever with the 'so-called' EDL Theology Department.

29 November 2010 at 11:00  
Anonymous TheObserver said...

Where? Point it to us please Mr. Kiwi.

29 November 2010 at 11:03  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

The EDL Theo Dept has provided quite a thesis but why make the effort; as theology is the study of a non-existent being, why bother to challenge it? So Caedmon’s feline friend, ignorance is no handicap :-(

29 November 2010 at 11:31  
Anonymous greg tingey said...

What's the fuss about?
Christianity or even "Faith" (unspecified) was represented by a serial liar. Which is exactly what one would expect, actually.

You see "faith" is a support for islam, as well, and hinduism and judaism, and communism.
And they are all blackmailing lies.

29 November 2010 at 12:56  
Anonymous AtillaTheHun said...

Greg tingey, what an absurd idea you have. If nothing is the truth, how do you define lies? Everything has a pair in this life. Man is paired with Woman, except for gays of course.

29 November 2010 at 14:06  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Graham Davis said.

As your stated belief system (nothing) is the study and blind acceptance of a non-existent process that not even when claimed it took years (oh..many millions then billions?)can show it happened or the phenomena that brought life into a sterile system that if you provide enough chance, enough unknown chemical reactions then hey presto..The culmination of the glory of the universe Man who is in himself God knowing that he was not created by anyone or supernatural power but by the power of the Almighty Sludge.

Maybe for the secularist, ignorance really is bliss?

So says KINGOFHIGHCS

29 November 2010 at 15:09  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

KINGOFHIGHCS

Nothing almighty about the sludge, just primordial soup.

Ignorance is being content with an answer based on fantasy and that defies reason.

29 November 2010 at 15:43  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Graham Davis said

What more can I say.

But who made your soup..compliments to the CHEF!!

In your last line you have wisely replied and answered your own statement!

So says KINGOFHIGHCS

29 November 2010 at 15:59  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

KINGOFHIGHCS

And who made your chef, I I forgot he made himself

29 November 2010 at 16:29  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Graham Davis said

He is Eternal..A concept you fully understand Mr Davis but which is unknowable in our finite 3D Universe.

Or must we discuss the concept of Quantums regarding the possibility of other dimensions not limited solely by Time.

I know you are clearly more intelligent than you are letting on otherwise why would you lead yourself down this cul de sac.

A very poor retort indeed.

So says KINGOFHIGHCS

29 November 2010 at 16:36  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Blair Hitch Project

For your consideration:

http://rockrobinoff.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/the-blair-hitch-project/

29 November 2010 at 17:00  
Anonymous John Thomas said...

Yes, I think the best we can think of regarding Blair is that he is a kind of Trojan horse in Christianity/the RC Church, working to destroy it from within, much as he did with the country. Of the masses of blood on his hands, only a small proportion comes from Middle East wars; most comes from the millions of victims of the abortion megaholocaust which he promoted.

29 November 2010 at 18:36  
Anonymous AntiAbortionist said...

Since he is now a reborn Christian like the lady that shouted wolf in the US that made abortion lawful, would the millions that perished show mercy on him?

29 November 2010 at 21:57  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

KINGOFHIGHCS said

He is Eternal..A concept you fully understand Mr Davis but which is unknowable in our finite 3D Universe.

Yes I was expecting that. The get out clause used by all who claim the existence of God. Pathetic! I’m afraid it is simply an excuse to believe in fantasy by saying it is outside our realm of consciousness. The same justification can be used for fairies and little green men, you don’t believe in them too do you?

30 November 2010 at 09:14  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow, this arch bishop must really be feeling on the back foot. What a complete dick. I wonder how he would do against Hitchens...

1 December 2010 at 04:04  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Graham Davis said

I am currently offline at home due to weather but I will give you an answer..I have not forgotten nor am I shying away from your Emotional retort.I will always answer with logic, science and reason to atheists, which is something atheists seem to shy away from when giving an account of themselves!

SO SAYS KINGOFHIGHCS

5 December 2010 at 14:16  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hooray, back online again.
Graham Davis said 30 November 2010 09:14.
I was trying to discuss with you the Nature of Reality.

He Is Eternal and because you state that 'it is a get out clause' you err by your lack of reason! You obviously believe that Eterrnity means you have a lot of time but I am trying to explain the Nature of GOD!
Is He subject to or restricted by
a) Mass ?
b) Acceleration ?
c) Gravity ?

He resides outside the dimensionality of Time altogether ! and is therefore truly (as the word should really mean) UNIQUE!
Isaiah 57;15
15 For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.

He does not reside within our 3 dimensional universe because he is Spirit and outside. How can a Creator be limited to the dimension of his Creation which is limited to Time which He created and Time then started?

Time is a physical property, it is not uniform, and varies due to mass acceleration and gravity

Show me something that is Eternal within this dimension in which we inhabit. well then, so how can you know the term Eternal unless it is disclosed to you by someone outside the known dimensions in which we inhabit?
We live in a finite universe confirmed by advances in Quantum Physics from Einstein and others, showing that Time is itself a dimension and that past, present, future are not an end in themselves.

Einstein said;
'People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between the past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion'.
So if thee is something beyond and outside the boundaries of Time how is it knowable?

Particle Physicists ( mathematician with special training) allude to there being at least 10 dimensions known as Hyperspace ! ( 4 are directly measurable..3 Spatial + Time, 6 are 'curled' into less tha 10 to the minus 33 cm, and are so only inferable by indirect means )

How could God show that he resided outside Time as I allude to and as a validation show that it was really Him speaking to man and not just the vivid imaginations of men.
By writing History before it happens. Not True? Want an example? It's called Prophecy.

Book of Danial Chapter 2; verses 23-47

How is it possible that Daniel could know the 4 major kingdoms dreamt of by Nebuchadnezzar
obviously including Nebuchadnezzars own kingdom Babylon..

Before you waste time stating the document was written after the empires of Persia, Greece and Rome..The Old Testament was translated into Koine Greek from 280BC - 270BC as Greek was the common language and most Jews did not speak or read Hebrew.

These documents from the Old Testament in Hebrew were availabe then for the Elders to translate from Hebrew to Greek so the ordinary Jew could understand their scripture!

Again, so how could Daniel know these kingdoms would arise.

No other religion has prophecy within its text except the Holy Bible as it is the authentication of God as only God could see the end from the beginning and declare it as such!

So Says KINGOFHIGHCS

6 December 2010 at 02:02  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Graham Davis said

Let us be agreed about one thing regarding the topic under which we write and the Emblem that is your blogger sign.

Why do you have a cross inside prohibitive sign and yet their is no half crescent moon, no star of David, nothing of hindu, sikh, buddhist etc .

I will tell you why..It is because it is the true faith that you wish to discredit and you and other such as Richard Dawkins know that if you can lead men aware from the only true faith your job is done.

Ironically the very faith you are determined to destroy is what allows you your ability to say what you do. we are a very tolerant nation!
Over 70% of GB public, in a national concensus, agreed in a God and/or Christian belief as their stated religious position! They may not fully agree with all the tenets of the bible or christianity but they know what they do NOT wish to believe in as a statement of belief, yours included.

Yet I would have thought you were aware of this from the writing of Karl Marx and communism, your atheistic politic system. Once it was accepted by Russia by Lennin, Trotsky etc, he was horrified as by his own assertions it should have been GB and others (more developed countries) who would naturally accept his political atheistic staement yet it was rejected out of hand in our country.

The Soviet Union and other countries such as China are dead or dying in their atheistic system and look to be similar in many ways to us in the West?

So why are you, Dawkins etc , spitting into the wind?
Well it appears the Nation largely prefer 'Do unto thy neighbour as you would have it done unto you' or 'Love thy neighbour as thy self'? , The Good Samaritan. 'To love one another', 'Turn the other Cheek''.
What about the Love Chapter 1st Corrinthians Chapter 13

13:4 Love is patient and is kind; love doesn't envy. Love doesn't brag, is not proud,

13:5 doesn't behave itself inappropriately, doesn't seek its own way, is not provoked, takes no account of evil;

13:6 doesn't rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth;

The greatest of these is love.

Maybe these are just a few things why Great Britain will never be atheistic in belief or politics and greater men than you, Dawkins, Hitchens or Condell have tried and failed!.

So Says KINGOFHIGHCS

6 December 2010 at 02:07  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Graham Davis said

Let us be agreed about one thing regarding the topic under which we write and the Emblem that is your blogger sign.
Why do you have a cross inside prohibitive sign and yet their is no half crescent moon, no star of David, nothing of hindu, sikh, buddhist etc .
I will tell you why..It is because it is the true faith that you wish to discredit and you and other such as Richard Dawkins know that if you can lead men aware from the only true faith your job is done.

Ironically the very faith you are determined to destroy is what allows you your ability to say what you do. we are a very tolerant nation!
Over 70% of GB public, in a national concensus, agreed in a God and/or Christian belief as their stated religious position! They may not fully agree with all the tenets of the bible or christianity but they know what they do NOT wish to believe in as a statement of belief, yours included.

Yet I would have thought you were aware of this from the writing of Karl Marx and communism, your atheistic politic system. Once it was accepted by Russia by Lennin, Trotsky etc, he was horrified as by his own assertions it should have been GB and others (more developed countries) who would naturally accept his political atheistic staement yet it was rejected out of hand in our country.

The Soviet Union and other countries such as China are dead or dying in their atheistic system and look to be similar in many ways to us in the West?

Why because we prefer 'Do unto thy neighbour as you would have it done unto you' or 'Love thy neighbour as thy self'? , The Good Samaritan. 'To love one another', 'Turn the other Cheek''.
What about the Love Chapter 1st Corrinthians Chapter 13

13:4 Love is patient and is kind; love doesn't envy. Love doesn't brag, is not proud,
13:5 doesn't behave itself inappropriately, doesn't seek its own way, is not provoked, takes no account of evil;
13:6 doesn't rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth;

The greatest of these is love.

Maybe these are just a few things why Great Britain will never be atheistic in belief or politics and greater men than you, Dawkins, Hitchens or Condell have tried and failed!.

So Says KINGOFHIGHCS

6 December 2010 at 02:12  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Graham Davis said

Your Hero Hitchens was ripped asunder by Dr William Craig Lane in a one on one debate as Hitchens himself admitted..But he is and is epitomised by the term Village Athiest!
Nothing Profund or of Sound Reason just emotional gibberish and rant.

Graham Davis said further 30 November 2010 09:14.
Response Part 1

I was trying to discuss with you the Nature of Reality.

He Is Eternal and because you state that 'it is a get out clause' you err by your lack of reason! You obviously believe that Eterrnity means you have a lot of time but I am trying to explain the Nature of GOD!
Is He subject to or restricted by

a) Mass ?
b) Acceleration ?
c) Gravity ?

He resides outside the dimensionality of Time altogether ! and is therefore truly (as the word should really mean) UNIQUE!

Isaiah 57;15
15 For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.

He does not reside within our 3 dimensional universe because he is Spirit and outside. How can a Creator be limited to the dimension of his Creation which is limited to Time which He created and Time then started?

Time is a physical property, it is not uniform, and varies due to mass acceleration and gravity

Show me something that is Eternal within this dimension in which we inhabit. well then, so how can you know the term Eternal unless it is disclosed to you by someone outside the known dimensions in which we inhabit?
We live in a finite universe confirmed by advances in Quantum Physics from Einstein and others, showing that Time is itself a dimension and that past, present, future are not an end in themselves.

So Says KINGOFHIGHCS

6 December 2010 at 12:16  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Graham Davis said further 30 November 2010 09:14.
Response Part 2

Einstein said;
'People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between the past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion'.
So if thee is something beyond and outside the boundaries of Time how is it knowable?

Particle Physicists ( mathematician with special training) allude to there being at least 10 dimensions known as Hyperspace ! ( 4 are directly measurable..3 Spatial + Time, 6 are 'curled' into less tha 10 to the minus 33 cm, and are so only inferable by indirect means )

How could God show that he resided outside Time as I allude to and as a validation show that it was really Him speaking to man and not just the vivid imaginations of men.
Isaiah 46:9-10
9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,
10 declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

By writing History before it happens. Not True? Want an example? It's called Prophecy.

Book of Danial Chapter 2; verses 23-47

How is it possible that Daniel could know the 4 major kingdoms dreamt of by Nebuchadnezzar
obviously including Nebuchadnezzars own kingdom Babylon..

Before you waste time stating the document was written after the empires of Persia, Greece and Rome..The Old Testament was translated into Koine Greek from 280BC - 270BC as Greek was the common language and most Jews did not speak or read Hebrew.

These documents from the Old Testament in Hebrew were availabe then for the Elders to translate from Hebrew to Greek so the ordinary Jew could understand their scripture!

Again, so how could Daniel know these kingdoms would arise.

No other religion has prophecy within its text except the Holy Bible as it is the authentication of God as only God could see the end from the beginning and declare it as such!

So Says KINGOFHIGHCS

6 December 2010 at 12:18  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Graham Davis said further 30 November 2010 09:14.
Response Part 2

Let us be agreed about one thing regarding the topic under which we write and the Emblem that is your blogger sign.

Why do you have a cross inside prohibitive sign and yet their is no half crescent moon, no star of David, nothing of hindu, sikh, buddhist etc .

I will tell you why..It is because it is the true faith that you wish to discredit and you and other such as Richard Dawkins know that if you can lead men aware from the only true faith your job is done.

Ironically the very faith you are determined to destroy is what allows you your ability to say what you do. we are a very tolerant nation!
Over 70% of GB public, in a national concensus, agreed in a God and/or Christian belief as their stated religious position! They may not fully agree with all the tenets of the bible or christianity but they know what they do NOT wish to believe in as a statement of belief, yours included.

Yet I would have thought you were aware of this from the writing of Karl Marx and communism, your atheistic politic system. Once it was accepted by Russia by Lennin, Trotsky etc, he was horrified as by his own assertions it should have been GB and others (more developed countries) who would naturally accept his political atheistic statement yet it was rejected out of hand in our country.

The Soviet Union and other countries such as China are dead or dying in their atheistic system and look to be similar in many ways to us in the West?

Why, because we prefer 'Do unto thy neighbour as you would have it done unto you' or 'Love thy neighbour as thy self'? , The Good Samaritan. 'To love one another', 'Turn the other Cheek''.
What about the Love Chapter 1st Corrinthians Chapter 13

13:4 Love is patient and is kind; love doesn't envy. Love doesn't brag, is not proud,

13:5 doesn't behave itself inappropriately, doesn't seek its own way, is not provoked, takes no account of evil;

13:6 doesn't rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth;

The greatest of these is love.

Maybe these are just a few things why Great Britain will never be atheistic in belief or politics and greater men than you, Dawkins, Hitchens or Condell have tried and failed!.

So Says KINGOFHIGHCS

6 December 2010 at 12:20  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older