|
Gavagai
|
|
Posted 04/05/09
|
Reply with quote
#1
|
|
Condensed version of the debate.
Craig: [presents familiar case for theism]
Hitchens: Some religious people have done bad things in the name of religion.
Craig: That is of no logical relevance to whether God exists. When will Hitchens respond to my case and provide rational arguments in favor of his own?
Hitchens: God is a mean tyrant!
Craig: When will Hitchens engage in rational argumentation?
Hitchens: What if I were born as an atheist baby, would you like that? I once testified against Mother Theresa! I hear white noise! God is wasteful! I drive a dodge stratus! I like lazer tag! I am a great liberator! I am free of false beliefs! You're so arrogant!
Craig: Um.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
KevinH
|
|
Posted 04/05/09
|
Reply with quote
#2
|
|
No big surprise here! Hitchens, being one of the "Four Horsemen of the New Atheism", needed to be addressed.
Let the vocal atheist activists have all the empty rhetoric and void content. We will glorify Christ with substance, arguments, and love. Keep up the good work!
K
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
DONG
|
|
Posted 04/05/09
|
Reply with quote
#3
|
|
Seems like a Craig-Carrier deja vous!
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Lightfoot
|
|
Posted 04/05/09
|
Reply with quote
#4
|
|
Hitchens had no arguments for atheism.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
icepick
|
|
Posted 04/05/09
|
Reply with quote
#5
|
|
did anyone here actually see the debate?
i would be interesting in hearing reviews from those who saw or heard the debate. idk if the OP saw the debate or just got wind of it from that blog thing?
thanks!
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
brady
|
|
Posted 04/06/09
|
Reply with quote
#6
|
|
I was there. The place was packed. There was three thousand people in the auditorium, another one thousand in a overflow room on campus, and another overflow room 10 miles away with another one to two thousand people. They should have reserved Caesar's Palace in Vegas and sold pay per view (maybe they will do that for a Craig - Dawkins debate!).
I can't believe that Hitchens came so completely unprepared. In his attempts at answering the cosmological argument and the teleological argument, it seems liked Hitchens was attempting to debate William Paley, not William Lane Craig. He was debating the wrong William.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Fanofdrcraig
|
|
Posted 04/06/09
|
Reply with quote
#7
|
|
Doug Geivett gives his 2 cents:
http://douggeivett.wordpress.com/2009/04/05/william-lane-craig-vs-christopher-hitchens-first-report
This was an easy win for Dr. Craig. I'm shocked Hitchens waved his concluding remarks!
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
tcampen
|
|
Posted 04/06/09
|
Reply with quote
#8
|
|
|
Seriously, did anyone expect anything different? WLC is probably the best debater in the world on these issues, with some distance behind him with whomever is in second place. Kudos for WLC for showing up, while Hitchens apparently did not. While these debates are fun for the show of it, it very rarely is the forum for substantive discussion. Most people are there to root for their guy, not to engage in truely intellectual, thought-provoking discussion. But at least most everyone enjoyed the show!
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
gwarlroge
|
|
Posted 04/06/09
|
Reply with quote
#9
|
|
I was there and agree with brady. I wish Hitchens had prepared some arguments--the problem of evil would have been especially good. (One Biola student asked about it in the Q & A session, and I fear that Dr. Craig's response lost some of the audience with its length.) I also wish Hitchens had pressed the "who designed the designer?" question more--he brought it up once, but that was enough to get some people's heads nodding. It's a fairly popular argument, so I think it needs to be discussed more. (Not that I think it can't be answered--it's just that no one knows the theist rebuttal.)
Overall, though, the debate was very fun. Craig won, but Hitchens was polite and interesting. Both of them seemed to be friendly toward each other, which was nice to see.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
sojournertruth
|
|
Posted 04/06/09
|
Reply with quote
#10
|
|
|
I attended the debate with my cousin who is agnostic in his views. He felt that WLC won the debate as I did, and he also remarked that Hitchins is not a true atheist.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Fianchetto
|
|
Posted 04/06/09
|
Reply with quote
#11
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by brady
I can't believe that Hitchens came so completely unprepared. In his attempts at answering the cosmological argument and the teleological argument, it seems liked Hitchens was attempting to debate William Paley, not William Lane Craig. He was debating the wrong William.
For all of Hitchen's bluster, he's really not that sophisticated on the issue of religion.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
carlko
|
|
Posted 04/06/09
|
Reply with quote
#12
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by sojournertruthI attended the debate with my cousin who is agnostic in his views. He felt that WLC won the debate as I did, and he also remarked that Hitchins is not a true atheist.
I'm curious why he thinks that. I haven't read Hitchens' book but have heard him speak a few times and he seems a virulent atheist to me.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
NoMereRanger303
|
|
Posted 04/08/09
|
Reply with quote
#13
|
|
I did not see the debate, but from what I've seen of Hitchens' other works - it's no surprise that everyone here felt that WLC wiped the floor with him.
Quite honestly, I find the so-called New Atheism a bit of a philosophical joke. Classical Atheism, on the other hand, has a little bit more bite to it (Rand, Nietzsche, people of that sort). It's still unconvincing to me, a theist, but it is not ridiculously out of touch like the Hitchens' and Dawkins' of the world IMO.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
mattdamore
|
|
Posted 04/10/09
|
Reply with quote
#14
|
|
I already said this in another thread. But I have to say it again here. Christopher Hitchens is philosophically dumb. As Craig said, he is not a profound thinker. In terms of irrelevant rhetoric, he is your worst nightmare. He must have some rare form of ADHD, because his ability to follow a line of argument is awful. If he doesn't, he is deliberately not following an argument to display his wit! His wonderful, sophisticated, brilliant, sparkling wit.
Look at me! Look how witty I am! I am sooooo witty and clever. I am sooooo part of the cultural elite . . . I am sooooo above your petty ignorance . . . Where's my cigarette, so I can look sooooo sophisticated . . . Wait . . . Am I doing this right? How do Brrrrrritish, bohemian intellectuals do this? Oh, they do! They can have a pipe too?! Okay, cool. I have a cigarette, though. Sartre always had cigarettes, so I think I'm good. Excuse me, mortal? What did you say? Oh, he's giving me an argument? That thing with premises proving a conclusion? Oh, I have the perfect reply. In the spirit of the great Oscar Wilde, I say the only thing worse than not answering an argument is actually answering it. Oh, did you see that? Did you see how witty and clever I was right there? Oh, I am sooooo brilliant. Oh, you mean I actually have to address the argument? Bosh! Why bother? I have some of the arguments I had when I was 5, and I'll keep repeating those over and over, and since I have a Brrrrrrritish accent, they'll sound good. I also have very clever insults. I'll get away with them because they're couched in my Brrrrrrritish accent, and I'll make people laugh . . . That's the plan.
Oh wait! A debate is actually giving arguments and reasons for my position? You mean I can't make jokes, clever insults, irrelevant Shavian wit, or tell rabbit-trail stories of Christian atrocities that don't address the point?
Well, what else is there?
Man, Hitchens is pathetic.
Here is the most pathetic thing. On a youtube video, he talks with the other 3 horseman. He says he likes debating religious people to sharpen his wit. Excuse me!?!?!??!? Can he be any more nauseating? How disingenuous? How utterly annoying? He needs to just walk away. Go back to writing whatever it is he writes in Vanity Fair. Vanity . . . how fitting. Wasn't that Pacino's favorite sin in The Devil's Advocate?
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Derek_M
|
|
Posted 04/10/09
|
Reply with quote
#15
|
|
You stated it perfectly mattdamore.
I've grown really irritated at listening to everyone praise Hitchens for his wit and appeal. He is dishonest, arrogant, insulting, irritating, and not of the intellectual caliber to debate this topic. I was looking forward to this debate but I don't even care if I ever listen to it now.
While the New Atheist clowns are being dismantled, I can hope (and perhaps pray  ) that Sam Harris is next. Dennett went down in flames against Plantinga showing that hanging out with the other horsemen, or perhaps donkeys would now be a more proper term, rots the brain.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
